I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - S A- 0 1 0 8 8 - S CT I N RE: J

I M HO OD, ATTORNEY GEN ERAL, EX REL . , S T

AT E OFMI

SSI SSI PPI TOBAC CO L IT IG A T IO N: TH E PA R TNE R S H I P F O R A HE A L TH Y M I S S I S S I P P I , I NT ER VENOR
v. S T AT E OF MI S S I S S I P P I , B Y AND THR OUGH GO VER NO R HALEY BA RBOUR, THE M I SS I SS I PPI DI VI S ION OF

M ED ICA I D I N T HE OF FICE OF TH E G OV

ERN OR , AN

D TH E M I SS I SS I PPI HEA L T H CA RE T

RU S T FU ND
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 30/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J AY E A. BRA DLEY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ACKSON COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : J AM E S W
. CR AI G F R E D L . B A N K S , J R
. J AM E S W
. S HE L S ON RO BERT G REG G M AY ER OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : M A RY J O W O O D S H A R O L D E
. P IZ Z E T T A , III A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : J O H N G
. C O R L E W VI RG I NI A T
. M UNF OR D J AM E S H. HE I DE L BE RG S T E P H E N WA L K E R B U R R O W BR ADL E Y S
. CL ANT ON J OAN L E I GH L UC AS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES DI S P OS I T I ON: 

### ONDI RE CTAP PE AL : AFFI RM ED
. ON CR OS S- A P P E AL : RE VE RS ED AN D RENDERED - 06/ 14/2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

### 2

EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. O n M a y 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , th e Ja c k so n C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r v a c a tin g its p re v io u sly -e n ter e d o rd e r o f, D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , w h ich h a d a llo c a ted $ 2 0 m ill io n a n n u a lly outof the t obacc o s ett l ementf unds t o the Partner s hi p f ora H e a l thy M i s s i s s i ppi
. A ddi t i onal l y, the or derof

M ay 30 , 2006, r equi r ed thatthe paymentm ade t o the Partner s hi p i n J anuary, 2006, be depos i t ed i nt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi H eal th C ar e T rus tF und. A ggr i eved by the entr y of the ch ance r y courtor derof M ay 30, 2006, A t t orney G ener al J i m H ood, upon r el at i on or i nf or m at i on and on behal f of the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi and the Partner s hi p f ora H eal thy M iss iss ip p i, ha s a p p e a led to u s. T h e G o v e rno r, D ivisio n o f M e d ica id , an d M iss iss ip p i H e a lth C ar e Trus tFund have cr os s - appea l ed, as s ert i ng t hatt he chanc el l orer r ed i n f ai l i ng t o tr ans f

er the r emai ni ng Par tner s hi p funds t o t he H eal th C ar e T rus tF und. F i ndi ng the D ece m ber22, 2 0 0 0 , co u rt-d ire c ted a llo c a tio n o f p u b lic m o n ies to a p riv a te e n tity to h a v e b e e n a n in v a lid and unenf

or cea bl e or derand thus voi d a b in iti o , w e af f i r m the cha ncery court ’ s M ay 30, 2006, or derva cat i ng i t s pr i oror der , though f orr eas ons di f

f er entf r om thos e s t at ed b y the chanc el l or . H ow ever , w e f i nd thatthe cha ncel l orer r ed i n fa i l i ng t o di r ectt he Partner s hi p f or a H eal thy M i s s i s s i ppi t o re l i nqui s h al l funds re cei ved f r om the pr i or , court - or der ed di ver s i on of publi c m on i es. In the end , w e af fi rm on dir ectappeal and r everse and ren d er o n crossa p p e a l.

### 3 F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. O n M ay 23, 1994, the A t t orney G eneral for t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi , M i ke M oor e, f i l ed a c i vil acti on agai ns tthe t obacc o i ndus try i n the C hance ry C our tof J acks on C ounty. T h e v a rio u s to b a c c o c o m p a n ies sp e c ifica lly n a m e d in th e o rig in a l li tig a tio n a s d e fe n d a n ts i ncl uded: T he A m er i can Tobacc o C om pany; A m er i can B r ands , I nc. ; R. J
. R eynol ds T obacc o C om pany; R JR N abi s co, I nc. ; B atus C orpor at i on; B r ow n & W i l l i amson Tobacco C o rp o ra tio n ; P h ili p M o rris C o m p a n ies , In c .; P h ili p M o rris I n c o rp o ra ted (P h ili p M o rris U. S
. A. ) ; L i g g e t tGr o u p , I n c . ; L i g g e t t& M y e r s , I n c . ; Br o o k e Gr o u p , L i mi t e d ; L o e ws C orpor at i on; L or i l l ar d C orpor at i on; T he C ounci l f orT obacc o R es ear ch - U
. S. A
. I nc. (S u c c e ss o r to T o b a c c o In stitu te R e se a rc h C o m m itt e e ); T h e T o b a c c o In stitu te, In c .; H ill & K now l t on, I nc. ; Corr
- W i l l i ams Tobacc o Com pany; G ener i c Pr oduct s Corpor at i on ; L aur el C i gar& T obacc o C om pany, Inc
. ; L ong W hol es al e, Inc orpor at ed; T he L ew i s B earC om pany; W i gl e y a nd Cul p, I nc . of G ul f po r t , M i s s i s s i pp i ; “ A ” Thr ou gh “ Z” Ent i t i e s ( M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 9( h) def endant s ) (the t obacc o def endant s )
. I n the St at e’ s C om pl ai nt , the A t t orney G ener al
a lle g e d , in tera lia , [ T ] he St at e [ of M i s s i s s i ppi ] has s uf f er ed harm and has i ncurr ed s i gni f i cant expens es as s oci at ed w i th the pr ovi s i on of nece s s ary heal th car e and others uch nece s s ary as s i s t ance undervar i ous St at e pr ogr ams t o c ert ai n el i gi bl e ci t i zens num ber i ng i n the thous ands w ho s uf f er , orw ho ha ve s uf

f er ed, f r om t obacc or el at ed i nj ur i es , di s eas es ors i cknes s . T hi s ci vi l act i on i s f ounded on pr i nci pl es of equi ty and i s br ou ghtunderM i s s i s s i ppi l aw t o avoi d a mul t i pl i ci ty of law su its in re c o v e ri n g su c h d a m a g e s, a n d fo r su c h o th e r re lief a s e q u itab ly m ay be obt ai ned, f

orthe harm thus unj us t l y, i nt ent i onal l y and w r ongf ul l y done and cont i nui ng t o be done t o the St at e and t o i t s ci t i zens by the var i ous def endant s , w ho have be en and c ont i nue t o be unj us t l y enr i ched ther eby atthe expens e of

the St at e.

### 4

I n par agr aph 40 of

the C om pl ai nt , the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi f

ur theral l eged: T h e S tat e sp en d s m il li o n s o f d o ll ars ea ch y ea r to p rov ide o r pa y for h ea lth ca re and othern eces s ary f

aci l i t i es and s ervi ces on behal f of i ndi gent s and other el i gi bl e ci t i zens w hos e s ai d heal th car e cos t s ar e di r ect l y caus ed by t obacc oind u ce d ca rdio v asc u lar disea se, l u n g ca n ce r, em p h y sem a a n d o ther res p ir atory and otherdis eases. T h u s, th e C o m p lain t laid o u t fo u r th e o rie s o f re c o v e ry : r e stitu tio n /u n ju st e n ric h m e n t; in d e m n ity ; c o m m o n la w p u b lic n u is a n c e ; a n d in ju n c tiv e re lie f. ¶3. U nderthe f

i r s ttheory of

recov ery – res t i tuti on /un j usten ri chment– the St at e of M iss iss ip p i sta ted in its C o m p lain t: In eq u ity an d fairn e ss , it is th e d e fe n d a n ts, no t th e tax p a y e rs o f M iss iss ip p i, wh o s h o u l d b e a rt h e c o s t s o f t o b a c c o i n f

l i c t e d d i s e a s e s . By a v o i d i n g th e i ro wn dut i es t o s t and f

i nanci al l y r es pons i bl e f

orthe harm done by thei rci gar ett es , the def endant s w r ongf

ul l y have f

or ced the St at e of

M i s s i s si pp i t o per f

or m s uch d u ties a n d to p a y th e h e a lth c a re c o sts o f to b a c c o re late d d ise a se . A s a re su lt, the d efe n d an ts ha v e b ee n u n justl y en ri ch ed to the ex tent that M issi ssipp i’ s t axp ayers have h ad to pay these co st s. ¶4. A s t o the s econd theory of r ecove ry – i ndemni ty – the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi cont ended: A s a di r ecta nd pr oxi m at e r es ul tof the br eac hes of

duty and omi s s i ons of

the d e fe n d a n ts a s a lleg e d a b o v e , the S tate w a s o b lig a ted to p a y a n d h a s p a id m i l l i ons of

dol l ar s i n the pas tf

orthe pr ovi s i on o f neces s ary m edi cal car e, f aci l i t i es and servi ces forcer t ai n of thos e af or ement i oned M i s s i s s i ppi ci t i zens in ju re d b y th e d e fe n d a n ts’ c ig a re ttes a n d u n a b le to a ffo rd a n d o th e rw ise o b tain such n ecessary m edical care, faci l i t i es and servi ces. ¶5. C oncerni ng t he t hi r d theory of r ecove ry – comm on l aw publ i c nui s ance – the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi al l eged: B y th e ir w ro n g fu l co n d u c t as a lleg e d a b o v e , the d e fe n d a n ts h a v e in ten tio n a lly and unr eas onabl y i nt er f

e r e d wi th the publ i c’ s r i ghtt o be f r ee f r om unw arr ant ed i nj ury, di s eas e and s i cknes s , and have caus ed damage t o the publ i c heal th, the publ i c sa f

ety and t he gener al w el f ar e of the ci t i zens of

M i s s i s s i ppi , and have

### 5

there b y w ro n g fu lly c au sed the S tat e to e x p en d m il li o n s o f do ll ars in su p p o rt of the publ i c hea l th and w el f ar e. ¶6. T her ef

or e, underthe f

i r s tthr ee theor i es of

r ecove ry, the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi s ought rel i ef as fol l ow s:
a. f ordamages i n an amount w hi ch i s s uf f i ci entt o pr ovi de r es t i tut i on and r e- pay the St at e f

orthe s um s the St at e has expende d on acc ountof the def endant s ’ w r ongf

ul conduct , w i th s ai d amount t o be det erm i ned at trial; b
. fo r d a m a g e s in res titu tio n fo r th e su m s o f m o n e y to b e p a id b y th e S tate in th e fu tu re o n a c c o u n t o f th e d e fe n d a n ts’ w ro n g fu l co n d u c t;
c. forpre-

j ud gm ent i nter est , as w el l as the S t at e’s r easona ble att orneys’ f ees , expertw i tnes s f

ees and othercos t s of

thi s act i on; d. f orpuni t i ve damages i n s uch amountas w i l l s uf f i ci ent l y puni s h the def endant s f ort hei rconductand as w i l l s erve as an exa m pl e t o pr event a r epet i t i on of

s uch conduc ti n the f

utur e;
e. f orsuch otherand f

ur therextr aor di nary equi t abl e, decl ar at ory and/ or i nj unct i ve r el i ef

as perm i t t ed by l aw as nece s s ary t o assur e thatthe St at e has an ef

f ect i ve r emedy; and f. fo r su c h o th e r an d fu rth e r re lief, as the C o u rt d e e m s ju st a n d p ro p e r, to w hi ch the St at e may be ent i t l ed. ¶7. Fi nal l y, under the f our th and l as t theory of r ecove ry – i nj unct i ve r el i ef – the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi a s ked the cha ncery courtf or“a pr ohi bi t ory i nj unct i on t o be i s s ued aga i ns tt he d e fe n d a n ts to p ro h ib it th e m fr o m p ro m o tin g th e s a le o f t h e irc ig a re tte s to m in o rs .” ¶8
. T her eaf

t er , the c ha nc e r y c ou r ts e tthi s c a us e f ort r i al t o begi n on J ul y 7, 1997. H ow ever , on J ul y 2, 1997, the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi , r epr es ent ed by the A t t orney G ener al , and the t obacc o def

endant s , e nt er ed i nt o a M emora ndum of U nder s t andi ng ( M O U )
. O n J ul y 15,

### The t er ms of the Se ttle me nt Agreement whi ch this Court provi des in t

his opini on 1 

### re latesol ely to t

he St at e of

Mis si ss ippi . Thete rm s of thenati onalsettl em ent , or thevarious se ttle me nts with theothe r s tate s involve d in s im il ar li ti gation, nee d not bedis cus se d. 6 1997, the M O U w as a ppr oved by the chanc ery c our t , a nd thi s act i on r es ul t ed i n a s t ay of t he tr i al unt i l such t i m e as t he par t i es w er e abl e t o com pl et e a f i nal and com pr ehens i ve s ett l ement
a g re e m e n t. ¶9. O n O ct ober 17, 1997, the S t at e of M i s s i s s i ppi and t he t obacco def endant s exec ut ed a C om pr ehensi ve Set t l ementA gr eementand R el eas e ( Set t l ementA gr eement )
. T he 1 Set t l ementA gr eementpr ovi ded thata n i ni t i al l um p- s um pa ym entof $170 m i l l i on w as t o be pai d i nt o a s peci al es cr ow acc ount( E s cr ow A ccount ) “f orthe bene f

i tof t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi
. ” A ddi t i onal l y, t he Set t l ementA gr eementcont empl at ed thatannual s ett l ement payment s w er e t o be made t o the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi i n pe rpetui ty on D ece m ber31 of eac h year . T hus , “pai d i nt o a s peci al acc ountf orthe bene f

i tof the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi ” ea ch yea r
w o u ld b e the foll o w ing ap p rox im ate a m o u n ts ( in m il li o n s): Y ea r: 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 S u b seq u en t Y ea rs A m ount : $68M $76. 5M $85M $110. 5M $110. 5M $136M $136M T hes e annua l p aym ents w er e l i kew i s e t o be pai d i nt o the Escr ow A ccount , s ubj ectt o the pr ovi s i ons of

the Set t l ementA gr eementand a s epar at e Escr ow A gr eement . T he Sett l ement A gr eementf

ur therp rovi ded thats uch payment s m ade t o the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi by t he
var i ous t obacc o def

endant s “s hal l be adj us t ed upw ar d by the gr eat erof 3% orthe C ons um er P ri c e I n d e x a p p lie d e a c h y e a r o n th e p re v io u s y e a r, b e g in n in g w ith th e fi rs t a n n u a l p a y m e n t.”

### 7

¶10. A l ong w i th t he i ni t i al l um p- s um and i ns t al l m entpayment s , the Sett l ement A gr eement pr ovi ded f

ora tw o- yearpil otpr ogr am “ai m ed s peci f i cal l y atthe r educt i on of the us e of T oba c c o Pr od uc t s b y c hi l dr e n un de rthe a ge o f 1 8 ye a r s . ” The p i l otp r og r a m w a s t o be f unded by a s epar at e, l um p- s um p aym entby the var i ous t obacc o compani es i n the amount of $6 1. 8 m i l l i on f

orthe bene f

i tof the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi
. T he Sett l ementA gr eement fu rt h e r e s ta b lis h e d th a t t h e p ilo t p ro g ra m “ s h a ll la s t f o r a 2 4 -m o n th p e ri o d ;” th a t th e $ 6 1 .8
m i l l i on “s hal l be us ed onl y . . . f orgener al enf

or cement , m edi a and otherpr ogr ams di r ect ed to th e u n d e ra g e u s e rs o r p o te n ti a l u n d e ra g e u s e rs o f T o b a c c o P ro d u c ts ;” a n d , th a t “ [n ]o expendi tur e f

r om the Pi l otPr og r a m A mounts ha l l b e mad e e xc e ptu po n a pp l i c a t i on t o t he [cha n ce ry c]ou rtb y the A tt o rne y G en era l an d a p p rov al o f su ch ap p li ca ti o n b y the [ch an ce ry
c ]o u rt .” ¶11. Fur therm or e, the Set t l ement A gr eement s t i pul at ed that “[ t ] he m oni es r ece i ved under this S ett lem en t A g ree m en t con sti tute reim b u rsem en t f o r publ i c heal th expe ndi t ur es m ade by the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi
. . . . ” ( E m phas i s added)
. T hu s, the funds w er e t o be “ us ed f or hea l th-r elat ed ex

pens es of

the Stat e of

Mis s is s i ppi . ” ( Em ph a s i s a dd e d)
. Fi na l l y, t he S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t m a n d a ted th a t “[t]h is S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t m a y b e a m e n d e d o n ly b y a w ri tin g e x e c u te d b y a ll s ig n a to ri e s h e re to , . . . .” ¶1 2. O n D ece m ber29, 1997, t he C hance r y C our tof J acks on County a ppr oved t he Set t l ementA gr eement , concl udi ng that“t he t erm s of the [ Set t l ement ] A gr eementar e j us tand i n the bes ti nt er es t s of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi
. ” The chanc ery courtl i kew i s e r et ai ned ju ri s d ic tio n to e n fo rc e th e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t a n d th e te rm s o f t h e e s c ro w a g re e m e n ts .

### Wh ile the ch ancerycourt do es no t hav e auth orityto d irect the state leg islature in 2 

### app rop riating state fun ds, intod ay’s case, w e are convin ced th at the ch ancell o r was o nly atte mpting t o prot ec t t

he Se ttle me nt Agree me nt by pl ac ing t he se ttle me nt funds into a

spe ci al fund so as t o a ll ow the StateTrea surer t o inves t them onie s in an int er es t- bearing acco unt unti l t he Le gis lature allo cate d thefunds . Addi ti onal ly, we s eeno nee d for det er mining whether thechan cell or ha d authori ty t o earm ar k st at e m oney f

or he alth- re late d expe nse s becau se th e L egislature subsequently enactedth e H ealth Care Tru st F un d. See M i s s . C ode A n n . § § 4 3 -13 -40 1 thro u g h 4 3 -13 -40 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). 

### Unle ss other

wis e spe ci fi ed, the phra se“ The Par tne rs hip”i s me ant

t o inc ludeal l t

he 3 

### appe ll ant s, nam ely, the Attor ney Ge neral , ex re l. , Stateof Mis si ss ippiTobac co Li ti gation, andthe interven or, th e Partn ership
. 8 ¶13. O n February 6, 1998, the J ackson C ount y C hance ry C our t ent er ed an agr eed or der di r ect i ng the tr ans f

erof the i ni t i al , l um p- s um paymentof $1 70 m i l l i on f

r om the es cr ow ag en t, S o u th T rust B an k , N
. A
. , “to th e S tat e o f M issi ssipp i. ” O n th e sam e d ay , the c h an ce ry
cou rt , on the m oti on of the A t t orney G eneral , ent ered a separat e orderdi rect i ng S ou th T rust B ank, N
. A
. , as esc r ow agent , t o t ake appr opr i at e ac t i on t o as s ur e thatthe f unds “be de pos i t ed i n the St at e Tre as ury i nt o a spec i al fund and i nves t ed as a l um p- s um by the St at e Tre as ur er
. . . u n til s u c h tim e a s a p p ro p ri a te d o r t ra n s fe rr e d b y th e S ta te L e g is la tu re .” 2 ¶14. O n J une 3, 1998, the Par tner s hi p For A H eal thy M i s s i s s i ppi ( Par tner s hi p) , a pr i vat e, 3
non- pr of i tent i ty, w as cr eat ed by t he f i l i ng of the A r t i cl es of I ncorpor at i on i n the M i s s i s s i ppi Secr et ary of St at e’ s of

f i ce. T w o days l at er , on J une 5, 1998, the cha ncery courtent er ed a J udgm entand O r derA ppr ovi ng the M i s s i s s i ppi T obacc o Pi l otPr ogr am. T he or der
es t abl i s hi ng the pi l otpr ogr am provi ded that“the non- pr of i tcorpor at i on ‘ T he Partner s hi p For A H e a lth y M is s is s ip p i’ is to se rv e a s th e m e c h a n is m fo r a d m in is tr a tio n o f t h e P ilo t P ro g ra m .” T he P artnershi p forthw i th recei ved the sum of $61 , 81 8, 00 0 fr om the tobacco defend ants .

### Wh en b eing d iscussedas an interv eno r, th e M ississipp i H ealth Care Tru st Fundwill 4 

### be referre d to as “MH CT F.” Whenbeing referred to as a dep osito ry, the Mississip pi H ealth Care T rust F un d w ill be referredto as th e “HealthCare T rust F un d.” The di ff er enc e be twe en the $280 m il li on me nti oned in thestatute, and the $170 5 

### mi ll ion m entione d in t

he Se ttle me nt Agre em ent was due t o these ttle me nt of si mi lar li ti gation in a s is te r s tate , whi ch s ettl em ent occ urr ed s ubse quent

to t he execution of Mississip pi’s S ettlement A greement. This up wardadjustment was envisio nedin the exp ress lang uag e of the Settlement Ag reement, andthe statute. See Mis s. Code Ann. § 43-13-403( d) (Re v. 2004)
. 9 ¶15
. O n M arch 30 , 19 99 , the st at e L egis l ature c reat ed the M i ssi ssi p pi H eal th C are Trust F u n d (M H C T F ) in th e S ta te T re a s u ry . See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 43- 13- 401 thr ough 43- 13- 4 409 ( R ev. 2004)
. Sect i on 43- 13- 401 provided thatthe “f unds r ece i ved by the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi f

r om t obacc o compani es . . . s houl d be a ppl i ed t ow ar d i m pr ovi ng the hea l th and h e a lth c a re o f th e c iti z e n s a n d re sid e n ts o f th e sta te. It is th e in ten t o f th e leg isla tu re b y th is
art i cl e t o pr ovi de the mannerand means nece s s ary t o carry outthos e purpos es . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 13- 401 ( R ev. 200 4). S ect i on 43- 13- 405( 1) di r ect ed that$280 m i l l i on “of t he f unds re cei ved by t he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi as a r es ul tof the t obacc o s ett l ement ” be de pos i t ed in to th e H e a lth C a re T ru st F u n d ; a s w e ll a s, “ a ll t o b a c c o se ttl e m e n t in sta llm e n t p a y m e n ts
m ade i n s ubsequentyear s f orw hi ch the us e orpurpos e f orexpendi tur e i s notr es tr i ct ed by th e ter m s o f th e se ttl e m e n t . . . . ” F u rth e rm o re , se c tio n 4 3 -1 3 -4 0 5 (2 ) p ro v id e s th a t: 5 T he H eal th C ar e Trus tFund sha l l rem ai n i nvi ol at e and s hal l neverbe expen ded, exce ptas pr ovi ded i n thi s art i cl e. T he L e g isla tu re sh a ll a p p ro p ria te fro m th e H e a lth C a re T ru st F u n d su c h su m s a s a re n e c e ss a ry to recoup any funds l ostas a r esul tof any o f the fol l ow i ng act i on s: ( a) T he f eder al C ent er s f

orM edi car e and M edi cai d Servi ces , or o th e r a g e n c y o f th e fe d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t, i s s u c c e ss fu l in

### Alth ou ghSectio n 4 3-1 3-4 05 (3) pro vid ed that this sectionwo uldbe rep ealed o n Ju ly 6 

### 1, 2004, a 2004 l egi sl ativeam endm ent changed therepe al er

provis ion to July 1, 2006, and a 2006 l egi sl ativeam endm ent ext ende d thedat e of

therepea le r t o July 1, 2010. A cc o rd in gto the fo rmula set o ut, sup ra , a pproxi mate ly $229. 5 mi ll ion wa s deposi te d 7 

### into t he Hea lt h CareTr ust Fund betwee n Marc h 30, 1998, and De ce mbe r 22, 2000, as a result o f the to bacco settlement p ayments. 10

r ecoupi ng t obacc o s ett l ementf unds f r om the St at e of M iss iss ip p i; ( b) The f eder al s har e of

f unds f orthe s uppor tof

the M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cai d Pr ogr am i s r educe d di r ect l y ori ndi r ect l y as a r es ul tof th e to b a c c o se ttl e m e n t; (c ) F e d e ra l fu n d in g fo r a n y o th e r p ro g ra m is re d u c e d a s a re su lt of the t obacc o s ett l ement ; or ( d) T obacc o ces s at i on pr ogr ams ar e mandat ed by the f eder al g o v ern m en t or co u rto rde r. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 3 -13 -40 5 (2)(a)-(d)(R ev . 2 0 0 4 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). 6 ¶16. Fr om M ar ch 30, 1998, unt i l D ece m ber 22, 2000, al l of the St at e’ s pr ocee ds f r om t he t obacco s ett l ementi ns t al l m entpayment s w er e depos i t ed i nt o the H eal th C ar e Trus tFund. 7 H o w e v e r, o n D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt e n te re d a n o rd e r d ir e c tin g , in tera lia , that$20 m i l l i on peryearw as t o be t aken f r om the annua l t obacc o sett l ementpayment s and d e p o site d in to th e P a rtn e rsh ip a c c o u n t. S p e c ifica lly , the o rd e r sta ted th a t: [ s ] uc h p a ymen t s s ha l l be i n the a mountof tw e nty- mi l l i on do l l a r s e a c h y ear t aken f r om the s ett l em ent paym ents d ue fr om the tobacco com pani es begi nni ng w i th t he D ece m ber31, 2000 and J anuary 2, 200 1 payment s and ea ch yea r there after. S ett li n g d efe n d an ts are h ere b y o rde red to p ay their pro -rata sh are of tw enty- m i l l i on dol l ar s t o a n a ccount , e s t abl i s hed atH ancoc k B ank ent i t l ed T h e P a rtn e rsh ip fo r a H e a lth y M iss iss ip p i, In c ., a M iss iss ip p i n o n -p ro fit

### Sim il ar orde rs wer e e nte re d by thechance ry court on J anuary 17, 2002; Novem ber 8 

### 20, 200 3; andD ecem

ber 21, 2004. Howeve r, unlike the De ce mbe r 22, 2000, order , the subs eque nt order s c harac te ri ze d the $20 mil li on annualpayme nt to t he Partner ship as being pai d “by t

he de fe ndant

toba cc o com

pani es ” a s oppos ed to “tak en from t he s ettl em ent paym ent s duefrom t

he toba cc o companie s. ” However, the Par tners hip continue d to rec ei ve $20 mi ll ion annua lly from t he St at e of

Mis si ss ippi ’s annua l t obac co s ettl em ent ins ta llme nt payments. The PEER Committee was cre at ed by the Le gis lature t o “provide
. . . a varie ty of 9 

### services to the L egislature, inclu din g p rog ram evalu ation s, econo my andefficiencyreview s, finan cial audits, limited scop e evaluatio ns, fiscal notes, special inv estigatio ns, briefin gs to individua l l egi sl at ors , t es timony, and other governmentalre se arch and as si st anc e. ” The PEER Comm itte e is c ompris ed of “ fi ve m em ber s of theHouseof Repre se ntatives appointe d by theSpeaker

and f iveme mbe rs of the Se nat e a ppoint ed by the Li eut enant Gove rnor .” 11 corpor at i on, acc ount#010628174, i n the s ame m anneras t hey pay the re g u lar ly sc h e d u led p a y m e n ts d u e a n d o w in g th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. ¶17. T hi s or derf

ur therpr ovi ded that“[ t ] he r emai nderof the s ett l ementpa ym ent s due af t er tw enty- m i l l i on dol l ar s has been pa i d t o t he P artner s hi p s hal l be tr ans f err ed by w i r e t o t he
acc ountpr evi ous l y des i gnat ed by the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi f

orthi s purpos e as has been done i n pr i oryear s . ” Fi nal l y, the cha ncery court ’ s or derof D ece m ber22, 2000, al so s t at ed that “[ t ] he C our tw i l l cont i nue t o m oni t orthe pr ogr es s of the Partner s hi p a nd r et ai ns j ur i s di ct i on f orany and a l l m att er s conce r ni ng both t he Partner s hi p’ s act i vi t i es and the s ett l ement
a g re e m e n t. . . .” 8 ¶1 8. O n N ove mber6, 2003, t he J oi ntC om m i t t ee on Per f or m ance E val uat i on and E x p en d itu re R ev iew o f th e M issi ssipp i L eg isl ature (P E E R C o m m ittee) iss u e d a rep o rt 9
e n tit led “ A R e v iew o f th e L e g a lity o f th e C h a n c e ry C o u rt O rd e r D ire c tin g A n n u a l P a y m e n ts
o f T w e n ty M illio n D o lla rs in P e rp e tu ity to th e P a rt n e rs h ip fo r a H e a lth y M is s is s ip p i.”

### 12

¶19. A f

t er r evi ew i ng the l egal i ty of the chanc ery court or der of D ecem ber 22, 2000, t he P E E R C o m m itte e c o n c lu d e d th a t th is o rd e r w a s “ n o t in c o m p lia n c e w ith s ta te la w .” A d d it ion all y , the P E E R C o m m ittee co n clud ed tha t th e ch an ce ry co u rt“ lack ed the s tatu tory
a n d c o n stitu tio n a l p o w e r to d ire c t th a t tw e n ty m ill io n d o llars th a t sh o u ld b e p a id to th e H e a lth C are T rust F u n d b e d ep o sit ed an n u all y , in p erp etuity, t o the c red ito f th e P artne rship for a H e a lth y M iss iss ip p i.” M o re sp e c ifica lly , the P E E R C o m m itt e e sta ted , “[i]tis a w e llunder s t ood pri nci pl e i n M i s s i s s i ppi const i tut i onal l aw thatthe Legi s l atur e appr opr i at es f unds
a n d th a tth i s p o weri s e x c l u s i v e t o th e Le g i s l a tu r e . ” Ba s e d o n th i s c o n c l u s i o n , th e PEER C om m i t t ee r ecomm ended thatthe A t t orney G ener al “s eek di s s ol ut i on of the D ece m ber2000 ch an ce ry c o u rt o rd e r tha t dir ec ted a n n u al pa y m en ts of $ 2 0 m il li o n to the P artne rship for a H e a lth y M is s is s ip p i.” ¶20. N otw i ths t andi ng the PE E R C om m i t t ee’s recom m end at i on i s s ued onl y tw o w eeks
ear l i er , the Partner s hi p, on N ovember20, 2003, f i l ed w i th the cha ncery courtthe Par tner s hi p’ s annual r eportf or2002 and r eques t ed t hat t he chanc ery courtent eran or der
a p p ro v in g th e a n n u a l re p o rt a n d th e c o n tin u e d $ 2 0 m ill io n a n n u a l p a y m e n t to th e P a rtn e rsh ip fro m th e to b a c c o se ttl e m e n t in sta llm e n t p a y m e n ts . O n th e sa m e d a y , the c h a n c e ry c o u rt,
w i thoutnot i ce ora hea r i ng, ent er ed an “ O r derA ppr ovi ng the Repor tof the M i s s i s s i ppi T o b ac co P il o t P rog ram . ” T h e re co rd d o es n o t r ev ea l w h ethe r, p ri o r t o the e n try o f th is ord er, the cha ncery courtw as everi nf or m ed by the Partner s hi p, oranyone e l s e, of the exi s t ence of the PE E R C om m i t t ee r eportda t ed N ovember6, 2003. I f the cha ncel l orhad bee n pr es ent ed a copy of thi s P E E R C om m i t t ee r eport , t he chanc el l orw oul d have know n by t hi s t i m e that

### The a bse nceof a gre em ent

betwee n theexe cutiveand l egi sl ativebran ches of 10 

### gover nme nt wa s a bas is used by the chance ll or to late r vac at e theorder ente re d on Dece mbe r 22, 2000. In2 00 3, G eneral M oo re didno t seek re-electio n, an d o n N ov ember 4 , 20 03 , Jim 11 

### Hood was el ec te d to ser

ve as Attor

ney Gene ra l. Gene ra l Hood took offi cein Januar y, 2004, andwas thus auto matically substituted inGen eral Mo ore’s steadin th ese pro ceedin gs. There for e, st arting in 2004, Gene ra l Hood i s l is te d as theAtt orne y Gene ra l in al l rel evant do cumentation
. Go vern or B arbo ur w as elected o n N ov ember 4 , 20 03 , and wa s admin istered th e oath 12 

### of of fi ceas Gover

nor in Januar

y 2004. 13 the exe cut i ve br anch, thr ough the A t t orney G ener al , and the l egi s l at i ve br anch w er e no l ongeri n agr eementas t o t he cha ncery courtor derent er ed on D ece m ber22, 2000. 10 ¶2 1
. O n D ec em b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , the P artne rship fil ed an o ther a n n u al rep o rtw ith the ch an ce ry
court , det ai l i ng the Partner s hi p’ s act i vi t i es f r om J une 1, 2003 t o M ay 31, 2004. O nce a gai n, 11 th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r a p p ro v in g th e P a rtn e rsh ip ’s a n n u a l re p o rt. ¶22. B y thi s t i m e, Sena t orM i ke C haney, a ppr oxi m at el y one mont h pr i ort o the entry of the
or derof D ece m ber21, 2004 , had w r i t t en a l ett ert o G ener al H ood on N ovember18, 2004, expr es s i ng c oncerns a boutthe court - or der ed di ver s i on of $20 m i l l i on e ach yeart o t he P a rtn e rsh ip . O n Ja n u a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , H a le y B a rb o u r, G o v e rn o r o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i, 12
s enta mem or andum t o G ener al H ood s eeki ng author i ty t o hi r e out s i de couns el t o pur s ue
vaca t i on of

the or derof D ece m ber22, 2000, “[ s ] i nce [ the A t t orney G ener al ’ s ] of f i ce w i l l not be r epr es ent i ng us i n t hi s l i t i gat i on. ” Short l y t her eaf t er , on February 1, 2005, S t at e Tre as ur er T at e R eeve s s ubm i t t ed a l ett ert o G ener al H ood r eques t i ng thatthe A t t orney G ener al ’ s of f i ce rep rese n t th e “ B o ard o f th e H ea lth C are T rust F u n d ” in ord er to rec o v er “ an y m o n ies th at are

### 14

due and ow i ng t he H eal th C ar e Trus tFund. ” Senat orC haney a nd T r eas ur erR eeve s r ece i ved
no re l i ef fr om t he A t t orney G ener al ’ s off i ce conc erni ng t hei rr eques t s , butG overnorB arbour
r ece i ved condi t i onal author i ty f r om G ener al H ood t o hi r e out s i de couns el atthe r at e of $150 p er h o u r “fo r th e so le pu rpo se o f fi li n g a m o ti o n to es tablish stan d ing to interv en e b efo re C han cery Judg e Jaye B radl ey i n the C han cery C ou rto f J ackson C ou nty, M i ssi ssi pp i i n cau se
n u m b er 9 4 -1 4 2 9 . . . a ss u m [i n g ] that y o u h av e the fun d s in y o u r bu d g et for w h ich y o u are
a u th o ri z e d to e x p e n d le g a l f e e s in th is m a tte r.” ¶23. O n February 10, 2005, G overnorBarbour , a nd the M i s s i s s i ppi D i vi s i on of M edi cai d, the O f f i ce of the G overnor , f

i l ed a mot i on t o i nt ervene. A ddi t i onal l y, the G overnorand D i vi s i on of

M edi cai d f

i l ed a M ot i on t o SetA s i de and V aca t e the cha ncery cou r tor derof D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 . L e ss th a n o n e m o n th late r, o n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 5 , the P a rtn e rsh ip filed its M ot i on t o Int ervene. Fi nal l y, on M ar ch 31, 2005, M H C T F f i l ed i t s M ot i ons t o I nt ervene a nd t o Va c a t e a n d I n c o rp o r a t e d M e mo r a n d u m o f L a w. ¶2 4
. O n A p ri l 1 , 20 0 5 , A tt o rne y G en era l Jim H o o d filed a re sp o n se to th e m o tio n to i nt ervene f

i l ed by the G overnora nd D i vi s i on of M edi cai d. T hats ame day, the G overnorand D i vi s i on of

M edi cai d r es ponded t o the R ul e 12( b)( 6) m oti on t o di s m i s s f i l ed by the P a rt n e rs h ip
. See M iss . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ). A lso , the G o v e rn o r a n d D iv isio n o f M e d ica id
r es ponded t o t he Partner s hi p’ s m ot i on t o i nt ervene. ¶25. O n A pr i l 12, 2005, bas ed on G ener al H ood’ s r es pons e t o the mot i on t o i nt ervene f i l ed by the G overnora nd D i vi s i on of M edi cai d, the G overnorand D i vi s i on of M edi cai d f

i l ed a R ebutt al M emora ndum i n Suppor tof the M ot i on t o I nt ervene.

### 15

¶26. O n A pr i l 19, 2005, the Par tner s hi p r eques t ed t hat i t s r es pons e t o M H C T F’ s m ot i on to in ter v e n e b e sta y e d u n til su c h tim e a s th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt d e ter m in e d if th e P a rtn e rsh ip coul d i nt ervene. A ddi t i onal l y, the G overnorand D i vi s i on of M edi cai d f

i l ed a r ebutt al t o the issue o f w h ethe r the P artne rship h ad a righ t t o interv en e p u rsua n t t o M iss. R
. C iv. P. 24 (a)(2). ¶2 7
. O n A p ri l 20 , 2 0 0 5 , M H C T F o p p o sed the P artne rship ’s m o ti o n for a stay . T h ere after, on M ay 23, 2005, G ener al H ood f i l ed a r es pons e t o M H C T F’ s m ot i on t o i nt ervene. Fi nal l y, M H C T F r epl i ed t o G ener al H ood’ s oppos i t i on t o M H C T F’ s m ot i on t o i nt ervene. ¶28. B ef

or e such m ot i ons t o i nt ervene coul d be decided, on M ay 24, 2005, the A t t or ney G ener al m ade a n or e t enus mot i on f ora c ont i nuance s o thatthe s t at e L egi s l atur e coul d have an opportuni ty t o re vi ew t he chanc ery cour torde rof D ece m ber22, 2000. Subse quentt o the A t t orney G eneral ’s or e t enus mot i on , the Gove rno rmad e an ore t enus m ot i on t o s t ay the tr ans f erof f unds t o the Par tner s hi p and expendi tur es by the Par tner s hi p i n 2005. O n J une 21, 20 05 , the ch ancery co urtgrant ed the A t t orney G eneral ’s or e t enus m ot i on f ora cont i nuance , bu tden i ed the G ov ernor’ s or e t enus m ot i on t o st ay tr ans f erof f unds t o the Partner s hi p and expendi tur es by the Partner s hi p. ¶2 9
. O n A u g u st 5 , 2 0 0 5 , w e e n tered an O rde r gra n ti n g the P eti ti o n for P erm issio n to A ppeal a nd f

orExt r aor di nary Rel i ef

a nd Reques tf

orExpedi t ed A ppeal f

i l ed by the G overnor
an d D iv isio n o f M ed icaid. T h is C o u rtfurthe r fou n d that the “ Jac k so n C o u n ty C h an ce ry C ounty err ed i n gr anti ng the cont i nuance unt i l s om e undet erm i ned t i m e i n 2006. ” W e l i ke w i s e s t a t e d tha t“ [ t ] he q ue s t i on o f s t a yi ng tr a ns f

e r s o f mone y t o the Pa r tne r s hi p or

### 16

expendi tur es by the Partner s hi p w i l l notbe cons i der ed her e bec au s e i ti s ul t i mat e l y d ependa nt
o n th e m e ri ts o f t h is c a s e .” ¶3 0
. O n N o v em b er 2 , 2 0 0 5 , the G o v ern o r an d D ivisi o n o f M ed icaid fi led in the c h an ce ry
courta M emora ndum i n Suppor tof thei rM ot i on t o I nt ervene. O n N ovember16, 2005, M H C T F f

i l ed i t s Rebut t al t o the Par tner s hi p’ s Respons e t o M H C T F’ s M ot i on t o I nt ervene. ¶31. O n D ece m ber1, 2005, the J acks on C ounty C hance ry C our tconduct ed a he ar i ng on the m ot i ons t o i nt ervene f i l ed by the G overnorand D i vi s i on of M edi cai d, M H C T F and the Par tner s hi p. A l l t hr ee m ot i ons t o i nt ervene w er e gr ant ed on D ece m ber16, 2005. I n addi t i on, th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt o rd e re d th e P a rtn e rsh ip to h o ld th e “ 2 0 0 5 in sta llm e n t p a y m e n t in tru st, al l ow i ng no expendi tur e, budget i ng orotherus e of s ai d i ns t al l m entunt i l a f ul l hear i ng and fi n a l ju d g m e n t is e n te re d .” ¶3 2. T her e a f

t e r , on D e c e mber 19 , 20 05 , the G ov e rno r a nd D i vi s i on of M e di cai d f i l ed a R u le 6 0 m o tio n to s e t a s id e th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt o rd e r o f D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0
. See M i s s . R. C i v. P. 60. T en days l at er , on D ecem ber 29, 2005, M H C T F f i l ed a M ot i on t o V aca t e and I ncorpora t ed M emora ndum of L aw as ki ng the cha ncery courtt o s etas i de i t s or der s of D ecem ber 22, 2000 ; January 1 7, 20 02 ; N ov em ber 20, 2003 ; an d D ecem ber 21, 2004
. T hese
o rde rs ha d d ir ec ted th e a n n u al pa y m en ts of $ 2 0 m il li o n fro m th e S tate o f M issi ssipp i’ s t obacc o s ett l ementi ns t al l m entpayment s t o the Partner s hi p. ¶ 3 3
. O n A p ril 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , th e P a rtn e rsh ip filed its R e sp o n se in O p p o sitio n to th e M o tio n to V aca t e and I ncorpor at ed M emora ndum of L aw . O n A pr i l 17, 2006, G ener al H ood f i l ed a Re s p o n s e i n Op p o s i t i o n t o th e M o t i o n s t o Va c a t e a n d I n c o rp o r a t e d M e mo r a n d u m o f L a w.

### 17

¶34. B as ed on the obj ect i ons of the P artnershi p and the A t t orney G ener al , M H C T F, on A pr i l 20, 2006, f

i l ed a Rebut t al t o the O pposi t i on of i t s M ot i on t o V aca t e w hi ch had be en filed b y th e P a rtn e rsh ip . O n M a y 2 , 2 0 0 6 , M H C T F filed a R e b u ttal to th e O p p o sitio n o f its M ot i on t o V aca t e w hi ch had be en f i l ed by the A t t orney G ener al
. O n A pr i l 21, 2006, t he G o v e rn o r a n d D iv isio n o f M e d ica id filed a R e b u ttal M e m o ra n d u m in S u p p o rt o f M o tio n to V aca t e. ¶ 3 5
. T h e n , o n A p ri l 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , G e n e ra l H o o d s e rv e d a S u p p le m e n ta l R e s p o n s e in O ppos i t i on t o the M ot i on t o V aca t e and I ncorporat ed M emora ndum of L aw . N ot
s urpr i s i ngl y, the G overnorand D i vi s i on of M edi cai d f

i l ed a Rebut t al t o Suppl ement al R es pons e of

the A t t orney G ener al on A pr i l 25, 2006. T he mot i on t o vacat e w as hear d on A pr i l 25, 2006, a nd a l l pa r t i es w er e pr es ent . A tthe conc l us i on of thi s evi dent i ary hear i ng, the cha ncel l ort ook thi s m att erunderadvi s ementf ors ubs equentrul i ng. ¶36. O n M ay 30, 2006, t he J acks on C ounty C hance ry Courtent er ed a de t ai l ed or der w hi ch i s the s ubj ect o f t his ap peal
. I n t he cour s e of ourdi s cus s i on of

the i s s ues , w e w i l l s etout
v e rb a t i m i nfr a the co ntent s of this o rder , w hich i s un qu est i on ably rel evan tto t od ay’s i ssues. Suf f i ce i tt o s t at e her e, f

orthe s ake of

br evi ty, thati n t hi s M ay 30, 2006, orde r , the cha ncel l or f ound thats i nce ther e w as agr eementbetw een the l egi s l at i ve and e xecut i ve br anche s atthe t i m e of the entr y of

the or derof

D ece m ber22, 2000, t o di vertt o the Partner s hi p acc ountat H a nc oc k Bank the s um of $ 20 mi l l i on e a c h ye a rf r om the t ob a c c o s e t t l e mentf un ds bei ng pai d on an annua l bas i s , the cha ncery cour thad aut hor i ty t o ent ert he or derof D ece m ber22, 2 0 0 0 ; b u t, th a t sin c e th e re w a s n o lo n g e r a n a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n th e se tw o b ra n c h e s o f sta te

### 18

gover nm e ntc on c e r ni ng the a nn ua l f un di ng of

the Pa r tne r s hi p, the c ou r tno l on ge rha d author i ty t o f

und the Partner s hi p vi a an a nnual courtor der
. T he cha ncel l orthus vaca t ed the
ear l i eror derof

D ece m ber22, 2000. ¶3 7
. O n Ju n e 2 , 2 0 0 6 , the P artne rship fi led its ap p ea l t o this C o u rt , a sserti n g tha t th is C o u rt
s houl d: ( 1) vacat e t he chanc el l or ’ s M ay 30 or derw hi ch had va cat ed the cha ncery courtor der of D ece m ber22, 2000; and, ( 2) vaca t e the cha ncery courtor derof D ece m ber16, 2005, gr ant i ng l eave t o i nt ervene t o the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F. O n J une 13, 20 06 , the G ov e r no r , on be ha l f of the St a t e of

M i s s i s s i pp i , D i vi s i on of M e di c a i d a nd M H CT F, f i l ed a N ot i ce of

C r os s A ppeal a s s ert i ng: ( 1) thatthe chanc ery c our tor derof M ay 30, 2006, sh o u ld h a v e re q u ire d th e P a rtn e rsh ip to tra n sfe r to th e H e a lth C a re T ru s t F u n d a ll unexpende d f

unds r ece i ved pur s uantt o the chanc ery or derof D ece m ber22, 2000; and, ( 2) thaton M ay 24, 2005, the cha ncery courts houl d have gr ant ed a s t ay of al l expendi tur es of the Partner s hi p pendi ng det erm i nat i on of the val i di ty of

the or derof

D ece m ber22, 2000. ¶38. T he P artners hi p f i l ed a M ot i on t o St ay P endi ng A ppeal on J une 21, 2006. O n J une 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , the P a rtn e rsh ip a m e n d e d its N o tice o f A p p e a l to in c lu d e th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. T he G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d a nd M H C T F r es ponded t o the Par tner s hi p’ s N ot i ce of A p p e a l o n Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 6
. A lo n g w ith th e ir re sp o n se , the G o v e rn o r, D iv isio n o f M e d ica id and M H C T F f

i l ed a M ot i on t o St ay Pendi ng A ppeal and an A m ended N ot i ce of C r ossA p p e a l. ¶39. T her eaf

t er , on J ul y 26, 2006, the Par tner s hi p f i l ed a R es pons e t o the M ot i on f orSt ay Pendi ng A ppeal and a Rebut t al i n Suppor tof i t s ow n M ot i on f

orSt ay Pendi ng A ppeal f i l ed

### 19

by the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F. T he Par tner s hi p’ s m ot i ons per s uaded th e G o v e rn o r, D iv isio n o f M e d ica id a n d M H C T F to file a R e b u ttal M o tio n in S u p p o rt o f th e ir M o tio n fo r S tay P e n d in g A p p e a l. ¶40. O n A ugus t30, 2006, G ener al H oo d fi l ed a N oti ce o f Joi ndert o M ot i on f or St ay Pendi ng A ppeal
. O n Sept ember12, 2006, the cha ncery courtdeni ed al l m ot i ons f ors t ay p en d ing ap p ea l. F o ll o w ing th e c h an ce ry c o u rt ’s de n ial o f th e m o ti o n to stay , the G o v ern o r, D iv isio n o f M e d ica id a n d M H C T F filed a m o tio n to sta y w ith th is C o u rt. ¶41. T hus , thi s C our tl i kew i s e has been cal l ed upon t o cons i dercert ai n pr el i m i nary i s s ues i n thi s cas e, as r evea l ed by ce r t ai n act i ons t aken by the C our t . O n O ct ober4, 2006, a thr eej us t i ce- panel or derw as ent ered ex pedi t i ng the appe al and r ef err i ng the mat t erf

oren banc
cons i der at i on. O n O ct ober19, 2006, an en ba nc or derw as ent er ed gr ant i ng the M ot i on f or St ay Pendi ng A ppeal f

i l ed by the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F. Such or der f ur therdi r ect ed thatthe Par tner s hi p “ s hal l note xpend any f unds , thati tc urr ent l y hol ds and
w h ic h it r e c e iv e d p u rs u a n t to th e S ta te o f M is s is s ip p i’ s to b a c c o s e ttle m e n t p a y m e n ts .” DI S CU S S I ON I . W HET HER T HE GOVE RNOR, DI VI S I ON OF M E DI CA I D, AND T HE M I S S I S S I P P I HE AL T H C AR E T RU S T F UN D HA VE T HE RI GHT T O I NT E RV E NE AN D C HA L L E NG E T HE CHANCE RY C O U R T O R D E R O F D E C E M B E R 22, 2000. ¶42. T he Partner s hi p f i r s tas s ert s thatthe C hancery C ou rto f Jacks on C ounty err ed by al l ow i ng the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d, and M H C T F t o i nt ervene a nd chal l enge the D ece m ber22, 2000, or deral l ocat i ng $20 m i l l i on annual l y t o t he Partner s hi p. Speci f i cal l y,

### 20

the Partner s hi p cont ends thatthe G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d a nd M H C T F: ( 1) cannot i nt ervene i n a concl uded m att er ; (2) have no st atut ory aut hor i ty t o i nt ervene i n thi s part i cul ar
m att er ; and ( 3) l ack l egal author i ty t o i nt ervene. H ow ever , the Partner s hi p’ s m ai n ar gum ent f ocus es on w hetherthe mot i on t o i nt ervene w as t i m el y as pr ovi ded by M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 24. ¶43. W e f

i r s tnot e thatcons i der abl e di s cr et i on i s gi ven t o a tr i al courti n rul i ng on a m ot i on to in te rv e n e . H

ayes v. L eflore Cou n t

y B d. of Su

pervisors , 93 5 S o. 2d 1 0 1 5 , 10 17 (M i ss. 20 06 ) ( c i t i ng City o

f Tu p e lo v. Ma rtin , 7 4 7 S o . 2 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); C um m ings v. B enderm an , 6 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 7 , 1 0 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); G uarant y N at ’l I ns. Co. v. P itt

m an , 501 So. 2d 37 7, 3 81 n. 1 (M i ss. 19 87 ))
. T hat bei ng sai d, a chan cel l or’ s deni alo f a m o tio n to in te rv e n e is u n d e rs ta n d a b ly re v ie w e d u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd
. H ayes , 935 So. 2d a t10 17 (c i t i ng Cohen v. Cohen , 7 4 8 S o . 2 d 9 1 , 9 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 )); P er r y Count y v. Fer guson , 6 1 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 1 -72 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 ). Itn ec essa ri ly fo ll o w s tha t a ch an ce ll o r’s gr antof a m oti on t o int erve n e m u st be c on si dered u nd er the sam e st and ard of r eview as a chan cel l or’ s deni alo f a m o tio n to in ter v e n e –ab u se o f d isc re tio n . See e
. g. , Monsanto v. H a ll , 912 So. 2d 134, 136 ( M i s s . 2005) ( s t andar d of r evi ew conce rni ng tr i al court ’ s gr antor deni al of m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm enti s the s ame – de novo) ( ci t i ng H a ta w a y v. N ich o lls , 8 9 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 4 , 1 0 5 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); Mil lerv. Meeks , 7 6 2 S o . 2 d 3 0 2 , 3 0 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). See a l so P re -P a id

L e g a l S e rv ., In c . v. B a ttle , 873 So. 2d 79, 82 ( M i s s . 2004) ( s t andar d of
r evi ew concerni ng tr i al cour t ’ s gra ntor deni al of m ot i on t o com pel arbi tr at i on i s the s ame – de novo) ( ci t i ng Tu

p e lo A u to S a les , L td

. v. S c o tt , 8 4 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 6 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). A . C oncl uded M at t er

### 21

¶44. T he Par tner s hi p t akes the posi t i on t hat the G ov ernor, D i vis i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F cannoti nt ervene t o chal l enge the cha ncery courtor derof D ece m ber 22, 2000, beca us e i nt ervent i on i s nota means t o r el i t i gat e conc l uded mat t er s . I n addi t i on, the Par tner s hi p cont ends thatal l ow i ng i nt ervent i on m ay pos s i bl y j eopar di ze the Sett l ement A greem ent betw een the S t at e of M i ssi ssi pp i and the v ari ou s t ob acco d efendan t s. ¶ 4 5
. Howev e r , i ti s r e a d i l y a p p a r e n tth a tth e Gov e rn o r , Di v i s i o n o f M e d i c a i d a n d M HC TF
ar e notatt empt i ng t o r el i t i gat e i s s ues al r eady de ci ded. T he cha ncery courtor derof D ece m ber22, 2000, has neverbe en l i t i gat ed. W hi l e i ti s true thatthe G overnor , D i vi s i on of M e d ica id a n d M H C T F co u ld n o t no w se e k to v a c a te th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t en ter e d in to betw een the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi and t he var i ous t obacc o compani es , they ar e notas ki ng us t o t ake the ac t i on of

vaca t i ng t he Sett l ementA gr eement . I n f act , the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F des i r e thatthe or i gi nal Sett l ementA gr eementbe enf or ced a ccor di ng to its ter m s. W h a t th e G o v e rn o r, D iv isio n o f M e d ica id a n d M H C T F a re a sk in g u s to d o is t o uphol d the chanc ery c our t ’ s de ci s i on t o va cat e thatc our t ’ s or derof D ece m ber22, 2000. T her ef or e, bas ed on w hatthe G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F ar e r eques t i ng b y w a y o f re lief f

ro m th is C o u rt, if su c h re lief b e g ra n ted , the S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t w o u ld notbe j eopar di zed, butactual l y enf or ced. ¶46. W hi l e the Par tner s hi p ci t es var i ous Fi f th C i r cui t deci s i ons t o s uppor t i t s pr opos i t i on, rel i ance on such cases is m i spl aced. Fo r i nst ance, the P artnershi p cit es Cis ne r os v. Cor pus Chri s tiI ndependent

School D is tr i ct , 560 F. 2d 190, 191 ( 5 C i r . 1977) , f orthe pr opos i t i on th that a m o ti o n to interv en e sh o u ld b e d en ied w h ere a third p arty is see k ing to reli ti g ate m att ers

### Th e pro visio ns o f Miss. R . Civ . P. 2 4(a)(2 ) andFed . R. C iv. P . 2 4(a)(2 ) are v irtually 13 

### identical; therefo re, federal ju dicial d ecision s offer gu idan ce. See Hart ford Cas. Ins

. Co. v. Hall iburton Co. , 826 So. 2d 1206, 1215 ( Mis s. 2001) ( fe deralint er pre tati on of Fe deral Rule s of CivilProce durei s per sua si ve authori ty when inte rpr eting t he Mi ss is sippi Rul es of Civi l Proce dure ). 22 thata l r eady have been deci ded. I n Cis ner os , the F if th C ir cu itco n clud ed that the p eti ti o n ers had no st atut ory r i ghtt o i nt ervene pur s uantt o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 24( a) ( 1) and thatthe di s tr i ct
courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng i nt er ven t i on u nderFed. R
. C i v. P. 24( a) ( 2) b e c a u s e th e p e titio n e rs ’ i n te re s ts w e re “ a d e q u a te ly re p re s e n te d b y e x is tin g p a rt ie s .” I d. 13 H o w ev er, i n tod ay ’s ca se, th e P artne rship ca n n o t assert th at th e inte re sts o f th e G o v ern o r, D i vi s i on of

M edi cai d and M H C T F ar e adequa t el y prot ect ed. I n fa ct , t he A t t orney G ener al deni ed the r eques tof

the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F t o chal l enge the chanc ery courtor derof D ece m ber22, 2000. ¶47
. A ccor di ngl y, s i nce the G ov ernor, D i vis i on of M edicai d an d M H C T F w er e not s eeki ng to interv en e in a co n clud ed m att er w h ich h ad alread y b ee n li ti g ated , the P artn e rsh ip ’s
as s er t i on l acks m er i t . B y al l ow i ng i nt ervent i on, the payment s m ade by the t obacc o
c o m p a n ies e a c h y e a r w o u ld n o t b e a ltere d ; an d th e re fo re , the S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t w o u ld notbe j eopar di zed. ¶4 8. W e al s o f

eel compel l ed t o a dd r e s s the d i s s e nt , wher ei n i ti s s t at ed t hat “[ t ] he i nterven ors s eek to part i ci pate i n a case o ver f ou r year s af

t er i tw as f

i nal iz ed .” (E m p h a sis added)
. Fi r s tof

al l , as w e have not ed, t hi s cas e w as not“f i nal i zed” atthe t i m e of

i nt ervent i on. T he G ov ernor w as s eeki ng a ce s s at i on of f utur e, $20 m i l l i on di s bur s ement s t o the

### Sectio n 7 -1-5 (n) p rov ides: 14 

### In a ddition t o the power s conf er re d and dutie s im

pose d on thegove rnor

by the cons ti tution and by the laws as e ls ewhe reprovide d, he s hal l have the powe rs andperfo rm the duties fo llow ing , viz: . . . (n ) He m aybrin g any p rop er suit af fe cting t he ge neralpubli c inte re st s, in hi s own namefor thest at e of Mis si ss ippi , i f a ft er

f ir st re ques ting theprope r of

fi ce r s o to do, thesaid of

fi ce r sha llre fus e or

negl ec t t o do thesame . Art. 5 , § 1 16 , Miss. C on st. (18 90 ) pro vid es, inter a lia , that “[t]he chie f e xec utive 15 

### power of this Statesha llbe ve st ed in a Gove rnor . . .”Art . 5, § 123, Mi ss . Cons t. (1890) , 23 Par tner s hi p; the G overnorw as nots eeki ng t o r eac h back and r ecoup the annual $20 m i l l i on di s bur s ement s al r eady m ade as appr oved by t he chanc el l or . Secondl y, w e emphas i ze thatt he P artne rship w as li k ew ise n o t a pa rty , b u t i n stead , a n interve n o r, just as w ere the G o v ern o r, D i vi s i on of

M edi cai d and M H C T F
. I n f act , al though cl os e i n t i m e, i tappea r s thatt he G overnorw as actual l y al l ow ed t o i nt ervene be f or e the Partner s hi p. B . S tatu tor y a n d L eg a l A u th o rity ¶ 4 9
. Nex t , th e Pa r t ne r s hi p a s s e r t s th a t th e Gov e rn o r , Di v i s i o n o f M e d i c a i d a n d M HC TF h a v e n o sta tu to ry o r le g a l au th o ri ty to in ter v e n e . A s to th e G o v e rn o r, th e P a rtn e rsh ip
c o n ten d s th a t M is s . C o d e A n n . § 7 -1 -5 (n ) (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) d o e s n o t au th o riz e th e G o v e rn o r to in ter v e n e . H o w e v e r, w e se e n o re a so n to a d d re ss se c tio n 7 -1 -5 (n ) b e c a u se it i s a b u n d a n tly

14 cl earthats ect i on 7-1- 5( a) and (c ) conf i r m t he G overnor ’ s pow ert o i nt ervene. Sect i on 7- 1- 5( a) s t at es “H e [ the G overnor ] i s the s upr eme execut i ve of f i cerof the s t at e”; and s ect i on 7- 1- 5 (c ) f u rt h e r p ro v id e s “ H e [th e G o v e rn o r] s h a ll s e e th a t th e la w s a re fa ith fu lly e x e c u te d .” T hes e exa ctpr i nci pl es ar e al s o setouti n art i cl e 5, s ect i ons 116, 123, of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tuti on ( 1890)
. T her ef or e, the G overnorunques t i onabl y has notonl y the s t atut or y, 15

### states that “[t]he G ov erno r shall see th at the law s are faithfu lly ex ecuted .” 24 b u ta l s o th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y t o i n t e r v e n e . I n f a c t , th e Go v e rn o ri s u n d e ra s o l e mn du ty to acti n o rdert o assure f ai thful execu t i on of our l aw s. ¶ 5 0
. N e x t, th e P a rtn e rsh ip c o n ten d s th a t th e D iv isio n o f M e d ica id d o e s n o t h a v e a u th o rity t o int ervene. In part i cular , the P artnershi p cit es Fr az ierv. State B y and T hrough P itt

m an , 5 0 4 S o . 2 d 6 7 5 , 6 9 2 n . 1 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ), fo r th e p ro p o sitio n “ a ll state a g e n c ies a re still d u ty b o u n d to f

o ll o w a n y s ta tu to r y r e g u la ti o n s c o n c e rn in g th a t a g e n c y ’ s a b il it y to b r in g a la w s u it.” T he Par tner s hi p thus as s ert s t hatunl es s the s t atut e gi ves the age ncy t he po w er t o s ue, t he agenc y does noth ave t he pow ert o s ue. T he Partner s hi p l i kew i s e s t at es thatw hi l e the D i vi s i on of

M edi cai d does have a uthor i ty t o br i ng s ui tunderM i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 13- 12 1( 1) ( I ) ( Rev. 2004) , t hi s a utho r i ty d oe s no ti nc l ud e mat t e r s r e ga r di ng M H CT F. E s s ent i al l y, the Partner s hi p cont ends M H C T F i s “out s i de the s cop e” of the D i vi s i on of M edi cai d’ s s t atut ory author i ty. ¶51. H ow ever , the D i vi s i on of M edi cai d does have a com pell i ng i nt er es t t o s ee thatt he
a n n u a l p a y m e n ts o f $ 2 0 m ill io n a re p lac e d in th e H e a lth C a re T ru st F u n d . In fa c t, ba c k in 1994, the A t t orney G ener al i ni t i al l y br oughts ui tf orthe expr es s purpos e of r ecoupi ng m oni es
e x p e n d e d b y th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i th ro u g h th e D iv isio n o f M e d ica id “ in c a rin g fo r th e ir f el l ow ci t i zens w ho have a nd ar e s uf f er i ng f r om l ung cancer ; car di ovas cul ardi s eas e; emphysema; chr oni c obs truct i ve pul m onary di s eas e; and a var i ety of othercanc er s and di s eas es thatw er e and ar e caus ed by ci gar ett es . ” Ina s m uch as the s t at e of M i s s i s s i ppi i s now

### 25

r e c o v e r i n g s u c h t o b a c c o f u n d s a s a r e s u l to f

m o n i e s s p e n tb y th e Di v i s i o n o f Me d i c a i d , we f i nd s om ew hatdi s i ngenuous the Partner s hi p’ s ar gum entthatthe D i vi s i on of M edi cai d has no author i ty t o i nt ervene be caus e M H C T F i s purpor t edl y be yond the s cope of the D i vi s i on of M edi cai d’ s s t atut ory author i ty. T her ef or e, w e hol d thatt he D i vi s i on of M edi cai d had author i ty t o i nt ervene, es peci al l y, s i nce the theory a nd purpos e of the l i t i gat i on w as t o r epl ace
m oney appr opr i at ed t o and expe nded by the D i vi s i on of M edi cai d. ¶5 2
. L a stly , th e P a rtn e rsh ip a rg u e s th a t M H C T F d o es n o t hav e p rop er a u th o rity to in ter v e n e . T h e P a rtn e rsh ip a g a in a ss e rts th a t M H C T F m u st b e a u th o riz e d b y s tatu te to file
s ui t . T he Par tner s hi p i ns i s t s thatM i s s . Code A nn. § 43- 13- 409( 6) ( R ev. 200 4), w hi ch
enumer at es M H C T F’ s pow er s , doe s notgr antM H C T F author i ty t o s ue. Sect i on 43-13- 4 0 9 (6 ) p ro v id e s , in tera lia , th a tM HC TF
s hal l have s uch pow er s as nece s s ary orconveni entt o carry outthe purpos es and pr ovis i on s of thi s art i cl e, i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, the f ol l ow i ng expres s pow er s : ( a) T o contr actf ornece s s ary goods and s ervi ces , t o empl oy nece s s ary per s onnel , and t o engage the service s of cons ul t ant s f

or admi ni s tr a t i ve a nd t e c hn i c a l a s s i s t a nc e i n c a rryi ng ou ti t s du t i e s a nd re sp o n s ib ilitie s in a d m in iste rin g th e H e a lth C a re T ru st F u n d a n d th e H e a lth C ar e Expendabl e Fund. T hi s i s no doubta br oad gr antof s t atut ory author i ty thatul t i m at el y gi ves M H C T F t he pow er to su e . M H C T F a ss e rts th a t th e fu n d s d iv e rte d to th e P a rt n e rsh ip rig h tfu lly b e lo n g to M H C T F , and that s ect i on 43 -13-406 (6) thu s aut ho ri zes M H C T F t o sue to r ecou p such funds. ¶ 5 3
. W h ile it is tru e th a t t h e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l “ is in d e e d th e a tto rn e y fo r th e S tate to
r epr es entthe peopl e’ s i nt er es t [ , ] ” .
. . [ i ] f an A t t orney G ener al decl i nes t o f i l e a s ui tr ef

err ed t o hi m by a s t at e age ncy, w her e t he m att eri s of s er i ous conce rn t o s t at e governm ent , then that

### 26

agenc y . . . i s a tl eas te nt i t l ed t o ha ve s om e courtpa s s upon w hetheri ts houl d have i t s f ul l day i n court . ” Fr az ier , 504 So. 2d at691. Thus, “[ t ] he A t t orney G ener al ’ s r ef us al t o r epr es ent the age ncy does notdepr i ve the courtof the author i ty t o keep j ur i s di ct i on and ent ert ai n t he
s ui t . ” Id
. H o w ev er, i f th e su itis ou tsi d e the o ffi cial co n ce rn o f th e a g en cy , the c o u rt
u n q u e stio n a b ly h a s th e au th o rity to d ism iss the su it. T h e G o v e rn o r, D iv isio n o f M e d ica id and M H C T F al l have pr evi ous l y r ef err ed t oday’ s cas e t o t he A t t orney G ener al , w ho decl i ned to tak e a cti o n ; and the c h an ce ry c o u rtd eterm ined that the s u itw as w ith in th e o ffi cial co n ce rn of the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F. T her ef or e, the chanc ery cour tw as
co rrect i n it s interpre tat ion o f Fr az ier , an d the m o ti o n to interv en e c an n o t be s et aside for a per cei ved l ack of

s t atut ory orl egal author i ty. C . T i m el i n ess ¶ 5 4
. F in a lly , th e P a rtn e rsh ip ’s m a in a rg u m e n t is th a t th e G o v e rn o r, D iv isio n o f M e d ica id and M H C T F shoul d nothave be en perm i t t ed t o i nt ervene be caus e thei ri nt ervent i on w as
u n t i me l y . M i s s . R. Ci v . P. 2 4 g o v e rn s i n t e rv e n t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y a ti s s u e t o d a y i s M i s s . R. C iv . P . 2 4 (a ) – in ter v e n tio n o f rig h t. M iss . R . C iv . P . 2 4 (a )(2 ) sta tes : U pon t i m el y appl i cat i on, anyone s hal l be perm i t t ed t o i nt ervene i n an ac t i on

. . . w hen the appl i cantcl ai m s an i nt er es tr el at i ng t o the pr operty ortr ans act i on w hi ch i s the s ubj ectof

the ac t i on and he i s s o s i tuat ed thatthe di s pos i t i on of the ac t i on m ay as a pr act i cal m att eri m pai rori m pede hi s a bi l i ty t o pr ot ectthat i nt er es t , unl es s the appl i cant ’ s i nt er es ti s adequa t el y r epr esent ed by exi s t i ng part i es. ¶ 5 5
. T h u s, M iss . R . C iv . P . 2 4 (a )(2 ) s e ts f o rth c e rta in p re re q u isites fo r in ter v e n tio n , to w it: ( 1) t i m el y appl i cat i on; ( 2) an i nt er es ti n the s ubj ectm att erof the ac t i on; ( 3) an appl i cantw ho

### Ag ain, w e reiterate that “Rule 24 of the Federal Rules o f Civ il Pro cedure andRu le 16 

### 24 of the Mi ss is sippi Rule s of Civi l Proc edur e us e virt ual ly t he s am e l angua ge t o des cribe the requireme nts for interventionof rig ht an d p ermissive intervention . Bo th Rules also re quire the s am e inte rve nti on proc edur e. ” Federat ed Mut. I ns. Co. v. McNeal, 943 So. 2d 658 , 6 62 n. 6 (Mi ss . 2006) . The re for e, it is use fulfor

thi s Cour

t t o look t o thefe deral jud iciary f

or gui danc e in cons tr

uing our rul es . Addi ti onal ly, “i t i s a ppropriateto l ook at fe derallaw int er

pre ting thef

ede ra l r ule s s inc e the Mi ss is sippi Rul es of Ci vilProc edur e we re patterne d a ft er

the Fede ra l Rule s of Civi l Proce dure .” Owensv. Thomae , 759 So. 2d 1117, 11 21 n . 2 ( M is s. 1 99 9). Seeals o Bourn v . Toml ins on Int eres t, Inc . , 456 So. 2d 747, 749 (Mi ss . 1984)
. 27 is s o situ a ted th a t d isp o sit io n o f th e a c tio n m a y a s a p ra c tica l m a tter im p a ir o r im p e d e h is
a b ili ty to p ro tec t h is in ter e st; a n d (4 ) a n a p p lic a n t’s in ter e st is n o t alre a d y a d e q u a tely
re p re s e n te d b y e x istin g p a rties . M iss . R . C iv . P . 2 4 (a )(2 ); s ee G uar. N at ’l I ns. Co. v. P itt m an , 50 1 S o . 2 d 3 77 , 38 1 (M i ss. 19 87 ). O nce a w ou l d-be i nterven or m eet s these
r equi r ement s , the rul e mandat es thatt he w oul d- be i nt ervenorm us tbe al l ow ed t o i nt ervene. ¶56. T he Par tner s hi p’ s mai n obj ect i on s t ems f r om the f i r s tpr er equi s i t e: t i m el y appl i cat i on. O n February 10, 2005, t he G overnorand D i vi s i on of M edi cai d f i l ed thei rm ot i on t o i nt ervene i n the J acks on Count y Chancery Court
. Soon t her eaf t er , on M ar ch 31, 2005, M H C T F f i l ed i t s m ot i on t o i nt ervene. T hus , s uch mot i ons w er e f i l ed more than f

ouryear s af

t erthe J acks on C ount y C hance r y C our t ’ s entr y of i t s or derof

D ece m ber22, 2000. D es pi t e the del ay, t he chanc ery courtperm i t t ed t he G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F t o i nt ervene a nd decl ar ed thei rm ot i ons t i m el y. ¶57. W hi l e t i m el i nes s i s notdefi ned in M i ss. R
. C i v. P. 24, the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A p p ea ls f

o r th e F if th C ir cu itoffers gu idan ce . T h e F if th C ir cu ith as id en ti fi ed fou r factors 16

### 28

w hi ch mustbe cons i der ed w hen det erm i ni ng w hethera m ot i on t o i nt ervene w as t i m el y f i l ed. T hes e f ourf act or s ar e: ( 1) T he l ength of

t i m e dur i ng w hi ch the w oul d- be i nt ervenoractual l y knew or r eas onabl y s houl d have know n of hi s i nt er es ti n the ca s e bef or e he pe t i t i oned f orl eave t o i nt ervene; ( 2) T he ext entof

t he pr ej udi ce thatthe exi s t i ng part i es t o the l i t i gat i on m ay s uf f eras a r es ul tof

the w oul d- be i nt ervenor ’ s f ai l ur e t o appl y f

ori nt ervent i on as soon a s he ac tual l y k new or r easona bly should hav e kn ow n o f hi s i nter est i n the ca s e; (3 ) T h e e x ten t of

the p re ju d ice th a t th e w o u ld -b e in ter v e n o r m a y su ffe r if h is pet i t i on f orl eave t o i nt ervene i s deni ed; and, (4 ) T h e ex ist en ce of un u su al ci rcu m stan ce s m il it ati n g eith er for or ag ains t a d e te rm in a tio n th a t th e a p p lic a tio n is tim e ly
. Stal lw or t h v. Monsanto Co. , 5 5 8 F .2 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 -6 6 ( 5 C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). See a l so , Hod ge s, G r ant th & Kauf m ann v. U

. S. , 7 6 2 F .2 d 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 2 -0 3 (5 C ir. 1 9 8 5 ); W alker v. Jim D andy Co. , th 747 F. 2d 1360, 1365 (11 C i r . 1984)
. W e al s o ci t ed S ta llw o rth i n P itt m an , 501 So. 2d at th 381- 82. T hus , “t i m el i ness i s notl i m i t ed t o chr onol ogi cal cons i der at i ons , but‘ i s t o be det erm i ned f

r om al l the ci r cumst ance s . ’ ” S tallw o rth , 558 F. 2d at263 ( ci t i ng U . S. v. U . S. Steel Cor p. , 548 F. 2d 1232, 1235 ( 5 C i r . 1975) ( quot i ng NAACPv. N. Y. , 413 U
. S. 345, th 3 6 6 , 9 3 S . C t. 25 9 1 , 2 6 0 3 , 3 7 L . E d . 2 d 6 4 8 , 6 6 2 (1 9 7 3 ))
. W h ile n o n e o f th e fa c to rs is out come- det erm i nat i ve, s at i s f yi ng one i n s om e i ns t ance s m ay be e nough. ¶5 8
. W e n o w ind ividu all y co n side r an d ap p ly the ti m eli n ess fac tors to the fac ts o f t o d ay ’s
cas e. T he f

i r s tt i m el i nes s f

act ort o c ons i deri s “ the l ength of t i m e dur i ng w hi ch the w oul d- be interve n o r ac tually k n ew o r rea so n ab ly sh o u ld h av e k n o w n o f his interest i n the c ase b efo re

### 29

he pet i t i oned f

orl eave t o i nt ervene. ” S ta llw o r th , 5 5 8 F .2 d a t 2 6 4 ; P itt m an , 501 So. 2d at 382. T he l anguage i s cl earthat“actual k no w l edge i s notr equi r ed. ” I d . at264 ( ci t i ng NAACP , 4 1 3 U
. S
. at 36 6 ). ¶59. T he r ecor d r ef

l ect s , and the cha ncery cour tdet erm i ned, thatthe G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F w er e aw ar e of the or der
. Speci f

i cal l y, the ch ancel l orconcl uded the a p p li ca ti o n for interv en ti o n w as ti m ely “ d u e to th e c u rren t, o n g o ing an d futu re expendi tur es and i nco m e f r om t obacc o s ett l ementm oni es . ” I n addi t i on, the cha ncel l or
r et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on unders ubs equentor der s . W e agr ee w i th the cha ncery court . W e do not l ook atthe entr y of t he D ecem ber 22, 2000, or deri n a vac uum . Si nce s ett l ementm oni es
w ere r ecei ved on an an nu al basi s by the Pa rtnershi p, the S t at e w as con t i nu i ng t o suff er a l oss
e a c h y e a r b e c a u se the p a y m e n t of $ 2 0 m ill io n w a s d isb u rse d , n o t to th e sta te tre a su ry , b u t to a pr i vat e ent i ty, namel y t he Partner s hi p. ¶6 0. T he s econd f

a c t ort o c on s i de rwhen d e t e r mi ni ng t i mel i ne s s unde rR ul e 24 i s t he “ext entof

the pr ej udi ce thatthe exi s t i ng part i es t o the l i t i gat i on m ay s uf f era s a r es ul tof

the
w oul d- be i nterven or’ s f ai l ur e t o appl y f

ori nt ervent i on as s oon as he ac tual l y knew or
r eas onabl y s houl d have know n of hi s i nt er es ti n the ca se. ” S ta llw o rth , 558 F. 2d at265; P itt m an , 501 So. 2d at382. W hen cons i der i ng pr ej udi ce i n the co ntexto f t i m el i nes s , t he onl y pr ej udi ce thati s rel evanti s “thatpr ej udi ce w hi ch w oul d r es ul tf r om the w oul d- be i nterven or’ s f

ai l ur e t o r eques ti nt ervent i on as s oon as he knew orr eas onabl y s houl d have know n abouthi s i nt er es ti n the ac t i on. ” S ta llw o rth , 5 5 8 F .2 d a t 2 6 5
. In a d d iti o n , “it is appar entthatpr ej udi ce t o the exi s t i ng part i es otherthan thatcaus ed by the w oul d- be

### 30

interve n o r’s fai lure to a ct pr o m p tl y [i s] n o t a facto r m ea n t t o b e c o n side red w h ere i nt ervent i on [ i s ] soughtunders ect i on ( a)
. ” Id
. T hus , thi s C our tcannott ake i nt o acc ountany
a n d a ll p re

ju d ic e th a t th e e x is tin g p a rt ie s a re li k e ly to in c u r if in te rv e n tio n is p e rm itte d
. I d. S u c h p re ju d ic e is m e a s u re d a t th e tim e th e m o tio n to in te rv e n e is fi le d
. P itt m an , 501 So. 2d at382. ¶61. I n i t s or derent er ed on D ece m ber16, 2005, the cha ncery courtf ound: [ N ] o pr ej udice w i l l bef al l the part i es t o the t obacc o l i t i gat i on. T he t obacc o c o m p a n ies ’ re q u ire d p a y m e n ts to th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i, i n a c c o rd a n c e w ith the t erm s of

the s ett l ement , w i l l notbe af f ect ed by the out come of the pendi ng m o tio n s. T h e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i w ill n o t b e p reju d ice d b e c a u se it w ill con t i nu e t o recei ve the r equ i red pay m ents . W e w hol ehea r t edl y agr ee w i th the cha ncel l or . I n thi s pa r t i cul ari ns t ance , a di s t i nct i on needs t o be dr aw n betw een the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi , r epr es ent ed by the A t t orney G ener al , and the P artnershi p. T he P artnershi p w as n o t an or i gi nal party t o the t obacc o s ett l ement . T he P artne rship w as p erm itted to interve n e a t app ro x im ately the sam e ti m e a s the G o v ern o r, D i vi s i on of

M edi cai d and M H C T F. T hus , the chanc ery c our tw as emi nent l y corr ectw hen i tdet erm i ned t hatt he or i gi nal par t i es t o the t obacc o l i t i gat i on w i l l nots uf f erpr ej udi ce by the i nt ervent i on of

the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F. I n thi s s am e or derof D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , th e c h a n c e llo r a ls o s ta te d , in tera lia , that“[ t ] her e i s no oppos i t i on f r om the G overnorort he T rustF un d t o the i nt ervent i on of the Partner s hi p i nt o thi s act i on,
c o n tin g e n t u p o n th e ir m o tio n s b e in g g ra n ted . T h e re fo re , th e P a rtn e rsh ip s h a ll b e a llo w e d to in te rv e n e in to th is a c tio n a s w e ll.”

### 31

¶62. T he thi r d f

act ort o cons i deri s the “e xt entof t he pr ej udi ce thatt he w oul d- be i nt ervenor
m ay s uf f eri f hi s pe t i t i on f

orl eave t o i nt ervene i s deni ed. ” S ta llw o rth , 558 F. 2d at265- 66; P itt m an , 501 So. 2d at382. T he pr ej udi ce thatw oul d res ul ti f the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d a nd M H C T F ar e notal l ow ed t o i nt ervene i s gr eat . E s s ent i al l y, $20 m i l l i on w hi ch
ar guabl y coul d onl y be pr oper l y and l egal l y appr opr i at ed by the Legi s l atur e w oul d cont i nue to b e d iv e rte d to th e P a rtn e rsh ip
. S in c e th e P a rtn e rsh ip is a p riv a te, n o n -p ro fit en tity , itis
con trol l ed b y a p ri v ate b oard of dir ect ors and i s not s ubj ectt o the saf egu ards otherw i se af f or ded publ i c f

unds
. T he P artnershi p’ s expendi tur es ar e nots ubj ectt o r egul at i on by t he S tate D e p a rtm e n t o f A u d it o r b y p u b lic p u rc h a sin g law s. T h e P a rtn e rsh ip p u rp o rt e d ly
r ece i ves and s pends st at e funds w i thoutany publ i c ac count abi l i ty orover s i ght
. T her ef or e,
w e h o ld th a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt w a s c o rre c t w h e n it state d , “[t]o d e n y in ter v e n tio n w o u ld deny the G overnorand Trus tFund of thei rar guabl e and purpor t ed r i ghtt o i nputr egar di ng
e x p e n d itu re s o r b u d g e tin g o f t h e s e fu n d s .” ¶6 3. Fi nal l y, t he f

our t h cons i de r a t i on u nd e rt i mel i ne s s i s t he “e xi s t ence of unus ual
c ir c u m s ta n c e s m ilita tin g e ith e r f o r o r a g a in s t a d e te rm in a tio n th a t th e a p p lic a tio n is tim e ly .” S ta llw o rth , 5 5 8 F .2 d a t 2 6 6 ; P itt m an , 5 0 1 S o . 2 d at 38 2
. In th is co n text, the c h an ce ry c o u rt
s t at ed, “[ t ] he ques t i on of cons t i tut i onal i ty of the O r der shoul d be r es ol ved t o avoi d any f ur therl i t i gat i on overthi s m att er . ” A l though the Partner s hi p ar gues ther e s houl d nothave b e e n a n y fu rth e r liti g a tio n a fte r th e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t to b e g in w ith , w e fin d th is
as s ert i on t o be w i thoutm er i t . T he A t t orney G ener al , i n D ece m ber2000, pet i t i oned the
c h a n c e ry c o u rt ex p a rte t o “modi f y” the s ett l ementagr eement . B eca us e t hi s m odi f i cat i on

### 32

m ay have been i n vi ol at i on of the appl i cabl e s t atut es and the Sett l ementA gr eement , w e f i nd th e e x iste n c e o f u n u su a l c irc u m sta n c e s m ili tatin g fo r a d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e a p p lica tio n is t i m el y. ¶64. T he di s s ent corr ect l y s et s out the f our - part t es t t o be appl i ed i n det erm i ni ng w hether an ap pli cat i on fori nterven t i on i s t i m el y; how ever, the d i ssent, aft er di scussi ng the fi rs t t i m el i ness f

act or, “fas t -f

orw ards” pastthe rem ai ning fact ors and co nclusi vely opines: “A ccor di ngl y, i n c ert ai n extr eme cas es w hen the mot i on t o i nt ervene ha s been f i l ed may be d isp o sitiv e o f th e e n tire a n a ly sis . T h is is o n e o f th o se c a se s. F o u r y e a rs is s im p ly to o lo n g to
s at i s f y the r e qu i r e ment s of

Rul e 24
. ” I n a l l de f

e r e nc e t o the di s s e nt , w e r e f us e t o a bandon the f our - partt i m el i nes s t es tal r eady di s cus s ed, and w e ar e f i r m l y convi nced thatourthor ough anal ys i s of

al l f ourof the “t i m el i nes s ” f

act or s l eads us t o the i nes capa bl e conc l us i on w e r eac h t oday conc erni ng the t i m el i nes s i s s ue. ¶ 6 5
. S in c e “ [t] h e q u e s tio n w h e th e r a n a p p lic a tio n fo r in ter v e n tio n is tim e ly is lar g e ly
comm i t t ed t o the di s cr et i on of the tr i al court , and i t s de t erm i nat i on w i l l notbe ove r turned on appea l unl es s an abus e of di s cr et i on i s s how n[ , ] ” the Par tner s hi p’ s ass ert i on l acks m er i tand th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt ’s d e c is io n m u s t s ta n d
. S ta llw o rth , 558 F. 2d at263 ( ci t i ng N A A C Pv. N. Y. , 4 1 3 U .S . at 3 6 7 ; U . S. v. U . S. Steel Cor p. , 5 4 8 F
. 2 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 5 (5 C ir
. 1 9 7 7 ); th McD o n a ld

v. E . J . L a v in o Co ., 430 F. 2d 1065, 1071 ( 5 C i r . 1 971))
. St at ed di f f er ent l y, th
w hen cons i der i ng the f

act s a nd c i r cumst ance s pe cul i art o thi s pa r t i cul arc as e as r evea l ed by the r ecor d bef

or e us , w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o f i nd as a mat t erof

w el l
- es t abl i s hed l aw thatt he

### 33

chanc el l ordi d notabuse herdi s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng t hatt he appl i cat i on fori nt ervent i on by t he G overnor , D i vi s i on of

M edi cai d and M H C T F w as t i m el y. I I . W HE T HE R T HE CH AN CE RY CO UR T OR DE R O F DE CE M BE R 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , AL LOCA TI NG $ 2 0 M I LL I ON A YE AR TO TH E PART NE RSHI P I S A VA LI D AN D ENFORC EABLE ORDE R. ¶ 6 6
. Th e Pa r tn e r s h i p a s s e r t s th a te v e n i f th e Gov e rn o r , Di v i s i o n o f M e d i c a i d a n d M HC TF had the r i ghtt o i nt ervene, the cha ncery courtor derof D ece m ber22, 2000, w as a val i d and enf or cea bl e modi f

i cat i on t o the or i gi nal Set t l ementA gr eementand s houl d nothave be en
vaca t ed by t he chanc ery cour t . O n the otherhand, the G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F cl ai m thatthe or derof D ece m ber , 2000, vi ol at ed the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on, the M i s s i s s i ppi H eal th C ar e T rus tFund st atut es , courtrul es and pr ocedur es , and the Sett l ement A g re e m e n t. ¶67. W e thus turn t o the chanc ery court or der of M ay 30, 2006, w hi ch vaca t ed the ea r l i er
o rd e r o f D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 . In th is o rd e r o f M a y 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , the c h a n c e llo r sta ted : A tthe t i m e thi s C our t ’ s O r derw as ent er ed on D ece m ber22, 2000, ther e w as agr eementbe tw een the L egi s l at i ve and E xecut i ve br anche s of gove rnm ent , as re p re s e n te d b y th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, fo r e n try o f sa id O rd e r in a n e ffo rt to prot ectthis po rt i on of the tobacco set t l em ent f un ds. T he t es t i m ony pr es ent ed demonstr at ed thatthe St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi, by and thr ough the A t t orney G ener al of the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , pr ocur ed the or der i n que s t i on a f

t erpr es ent i ng the C our tw i th the O r derand f ur theri ndi cat i ng, as the chi ef l egal of f i cerf orthe St at e of

M i s s i s si ppi thatal l part i es , the s t at e of M i s s i s s i ppi and t obacc o compani es , w er e i n agr eement . Si nce e ntry of the or deri n ques t i on and unt i l the f i l i ng of the M ot i on t o I nt ervene, the Execut i ve and Legi s l at i ve br anche s of governm ent , as evi dence d by t he t es t i m ony r egar di ng the agr eementof l egi s l at i ve l eade r s and i ndi vi dual m ember s of the l egi s l atur e, the i ncr eas e i n budget s and s pendi ng abil i t y of governm ent

### 34

agenc i es di r ect l y r el at ed t o f undi ng by the Partners hi p, and both l egi s l at i ve a c tio n a n d in a c tio n , h a v e b e e n in a g re e m e n t w ith sa id o rd e r. It is c lea r th a t th is no l ongerexi s t( s i c) and thatthe Execut i ve and Legi s l at i ve br anche s of governm entno l ongeragr ee t o the O r deri n ques t i on. A b se n t ag re e m e n t b e tw e e n th o se sp e c ific b ra n c h e s o f g o v e rn m e n t o r sp e c ific l egi s l at i on author i zi ng f undi ng of

the Partner s hip, thi s C our ti s pl ace d i n the pos i t i on of

det erm i ni ng the al l ocat i on and expendi tur e of di s put ed f

unds f r om th e to b a c c o se ttl e m e n t. T h e C o u rt fin d s th is is o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f th is C o u rt’s a u th o rity a n d fa lls w i thi n the pr ovi nce of

the l egi s l at i ve br anch of governm ent . T he l egi s l at i on r ece nt l y pas s ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e w hi ch di r ect ed f undi ng of

the Par tner s hi p i s f

ur therevi dence t hatt hi s i s a l egi s l at i ve f unct i on, s ubj ectt o the vet o pow erof

the Execut i ve as w as exer ci s ed i n r egar d t o the r ece nt l egi s l at i on. A bs entagr eementamong the Legi s l at i ve and Execut i ve br anche s of governm entf

orthe St at e of

M i ss i s s i ppi and abs ents pecif i c l egi s l at i on pr ovi di ng f

orthe cr eat i on and f

undi ng of

a t obacc o cess at i on pr ogr am, the C our tl ooks t o the l anguage of the s ett l ementagr eement . T he s ett l ement a g r e e me n to n l y p r o v i d e s f o rth e f u n d i n g o f

a 2 4 mo n th “ p i l o t ” p r o g r a m.

. . . W hi l e thi s C our tr ecogni zes the ef f or t s and the s ucce s s of

the Partner s hi p as evi dence d thr ough the t es t i m ony and pl eadi ngs , and r ecogn i zes the ef f or tof the S t at e of M i ssi ssi pp i , throug h it s A t t orne y G eneral , t o p rocure these s ett l ementpr ocee ds f

r om var i ous t obacc o compani es , thi s C our tcannot l egi s l at e. W i thoutagr eementbetw een the E xecut i ve and Legi s l at i ve br anche s of s t at e gover nm entof

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi ors peci f i c l egi s l at i on a u th o riz in g fu n d in g o f th e P a rtn e rsh ip , this C o u rt i s n o w w ith o u t au th o rity to cont i nue f

undi ng of

the Partner s hi p pur s uantt o the t erm s of the O r dernow chal l enged. ¶ 6 8
. W e d is a g re e w ith th e “ a b s e n t a g re e m e n t” r a tio n a le a p p lied b y th e c h a n c e llo r to under gi r d herdeci s i on t o vaca t e the pr evi ous l y ent er ed or derof D ece m ber22, 2000.

### 35

H ow ever , w hi l e w e agr ee w i th the cha ncel l or ’ s vaca t i ng the or der , w e do s o f orr eas ons di f f er entf r om thos e s t at ed by the cha ncel l or , and w e w i l l expl ai n w hy. ¶6 9. A gai n, w e m us tr e membe rw ho ar e t he or i gi na l pa r t i e s t o thi s ac t i on – t he A t t orne y G eneral , forand on beh al f of the cit i zens o f this S t at e, an d the vari ou s t ob acco d efendan t s. T hese pa r t i es vol unt ar i l y ent er ed i nt o a Sett l ementA gr eementw hi ch w as appr oved by the chanc ery court . H ow ever , the Partner s hi p w as nota party atthe t i m e of the s ett l ement b e c a u s e i td i d n o te v e n e x i s t . I n f a c t , i n t o d a y ’ s c a s e , th e P a r tn e r s h i p s t a n d s i n th e s a me shoes as the G ov ernor, D i vis i on of M edicai d an d M H C T F – an interv en or. W e m ustal so keep i n m i nd that , as a m at t er of pr act i cal i ty, w e ar e dea l i ng w i th a contr actw hi ch w as
en tered int o o n O ct ob er 17, 19 97 , by the S t at e of M i ssi ssi pp i and the tobacco defend ants , w hen they exe cut ed the Sett l ementA gr eement , w hi ch w as l at erapprove d by the J acks on C ounty C hance r y C our tby or derent er ed on D ece m ber29, 1997. T hi s Set t l ement A g re e m e n t, a p p ro v e d b y th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt , p ro v id e d , in tera lia , that( 1) $170, 000, 000 i ni t i al l y w oul d be pa i d i nt o the St at e Tre as ury; and ( 2) an addi t i onal $61, 818, 000 w oul d be p aid fo r a 2 4 -m o n th p ilo t p ro g ram foc u sing o n the re d u cti o n o f t o b ac co u se b y o u r st ate’s youth. I n J une 1998, the dul y- cr eat ed, pr i vat e, non- pr of i tPar tner s hi p pr oper l y r ece i ved the $6 1. 8 m i l li o n fo r t he tw enty- four- m on th p i l ot pr og ram . T he S et t l em ent A greem ent al so pr ovi ded f

orvar i ous s um s ther eaf t ert o be pai d a nnual l y by the t obacc o compani es i nt o t he St at e Tre as ury. I tw as f

orthe r ece i ptof

thes e subs equentannual paym ent s fr om the t obacc o defend ants that the L egis l ature i n 1 99 9 st atutor i l y creat ed the M i ssi ssi pp i H eal th C are Trust F u n d w ith in th e S tate T re a su ry . F o r th e s a k e o f e m p h a sis , w e se t o u t in to to the dec l ar at i on

### 36

of l egis l at i ve int ent atth e ti m e of the est abli shm ent of the H eal th C are TrustF un d. M i ss. C od e A nn . § 4 3-13-40 1 (R ev. 20 04 ) s t at es: I ti s decl ar ed by the Legi s l atur e thatthe f unds r ece i ved by the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi f

r om t obacc o compani es i n s ett l ementof a ce r t ai n l aw s ui tbr ought agai ns tthos e compani es by the St at e of M i s s i s si pp i , o ras a r es ul tof the s et t l ementof

any l aw s ui tbr oughtagai ns tthe t obacc o compani es by another s t at e, s houl d be appl i ed t ow ar d i m provi ng the heal th and hea l th car e of the c iti z e n s a n d re sid e n ts o f th e sta te. It is th e in ten t o f th e L e g isla tu re b y th is art i cl e t o provide the m ann er and m eans ne cessary to carry out tho se purpo ses. W hen thi s s t atut ory expr es s i on of l egi s l at i ve i nt enti s r ead i n conj unct i on w i th the Sett l ement A gr eementand the cha ncery courtor derappr ovi ng the Sett l ementA gr eem ent , w e ca nnot envi s i on a dec l ar at i on of l egi s l at i ve i nt entw hi ch coul d be any c l ear erthan thatw hi ch i s s et outi n s ect i on 43- 13- 401. ¶70. N otw i ths t andi ng thi s c l earexpr es s i on of l egi s l at i ve i nt ent , the Partner s hi p cont ends thatthe M i s s i s s i ppi H eal th C ar e T rus tFund A ctauthor i zes the cont i nued f undi ng of

t he Par tner s hi p w i th s ett l ementpr ocee ds
. T he Partner s hi p as s ert s thatM i s s . Code A nn. § 43- 13- 405 i l l us tr a t e s tha tM H CT F s ho ul d no tr e c e i ve a l l o f the t ob a c c o f

un ds
. Se c t i on 43- 13- 40 5(1), as ci t ed b y the Partnershi p, st at es: In a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e p u rp o se s o f th is a rticle , the re is e sta b lish e d in th e S tate T r e a s u r y th e H e a l th C a r e T ru s tF u n d , i n t o w h i c h s h a l l b e d e p o s i t e d T wo H undr ed E i ghty M i l l i on D ol l ar s ( $280, 000, 000. 00) of the f unds r ecei ved by the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi as a r esul to f t he t obacc o s ett l ementas of the end of fi s c a l y e a r 1 9 9 9 , a n d

a ll to b a c c o se ttl e m e n t in sta llm e n t p a y m e n ts m a d e in s ubs equent

year s f orw hi ch the us e orpur

pos e f orexpe ndi t ur e is notr es tr i ct ed by the t er m s of

the s et t l em ent . . . . (E m p h asis ad d ed ).

### 37

¶7 1. Fur t her m or e, t he Par t ner s hi p poi nt s t o s e c t i on 43
- 13
- 40 5( 2) ( d) t o s ho w tha t t he L egi s l atur e cont empl at ed thata port i on of the t obacc o f

unds w as t o be us ed f

or a t obacc o
c e ss a tio n p ro g ra m . S e c tio n 4 3 -1 3 -4 0 5 (2 )(d ) sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: T he H eal th C ar e Trus tFund shal l r emai n i nvi ol at e and s hal l neverbe e x p e n d e d , ex c e p t as p ro v id e d in th is a rticle . T h e L e g isla tu re sh a ll ap p ro p ria te f r om the H eath C ar e Trus tFu nd such sum s as ar e nec es s ary t o r ecoup a ny funds l ostas a r esul tof any o f the fol l ow i ng act i on s: ( d) T obacc o ces s at i on pr ogr ams ar e m and at ed by the f eder al governm entor co u rto rde r. ¶7 2
. H o w e v e r, the P artne rship ’s r eli an c e o n th e H e a lth C a re T ru st F u n d S tatu tes is
m isp lac e d . A p lain re a d in g o f se c tio n 4 3 -1 3 -4 0 5 (1 ) sta tes th a t a ll of the t obacc o i ns t al l m ent payment s w er e t o be made t o the H eal th C ar e T rus tF und unl es s re s tr i ct ed by t he t erm s of t he Set t l ementA gr eement . T he Sett l ementA gr eementneverr es tr i ct ed $20 m i l l i on of the tob ac co install m en t pay m en ts for th e p rog ram w h ich is cu rren tl y run b y the P artne rship
. In f ac t , the g r a nt i ng o f

$ 20 mi l l i on t o the Pa r tne r s hi p e a c h ye a re xp l i c i t l y c on tr a di ct s t he Set t l ementA gr eement , w hi ch di r ect s thatthe annua l i ns t al l m entpayment s ar e t o be pai d in to
a s peci alaccount

f orthe bene

f i tof the Stat e of

Mis s is s i ppi . ( E m phas i s added)
. I n addi t i on, according t o the very t erm s of the S et t l em ent A greem ent, the pil ot program w as sett o “las t f ora 24- m onth per i od. ” T he cont i nued f undi ng of

the i ni t i al pi l otpr ogr am t hr ough t he Par tner s hi p occurr ed onl y af t eran ex p a rte pr ocee di ng att ended by the cha ncel l orand the th e n -A tto rn e y G e n e ra l. ¶73. W i th r egar d t o s ect i on 43- 13- 405( 2) ( d) , the l anguage of the s t atut e i s al s o cl eart hat the “ l egis lature s hal lappropri ate f r om the H

eal th C ar e Tr us tFund su ch su m s as a re

### 38

nece s s ary t o r ecoup a ny f unds l os tas a r es ul tof

any of t he f

ol l ow i ng act i ons : ( d) T obacc o
c e s s a tio n p ro g ra m s w h ic h a re m a n d a te d b y th e fe d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t o rc o u rt o rd e r.” (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e sta tu te d o e s n o t g ra n t any cou rt author i ty t o al l ocat e s uch f unds
. T he
s t atut e expr es s l y s t at es thatthe f unds m us tcome f

r om the H eal th C ar e Trus tFund, not di r ect l y f r om the t obacc o i ns t al l m entpayment s , and thatt he f unds m us tbe appr opr i at ed by the Legi s l atur e. N ei therpr er equi s i t e i s metby the cha ncery court ’ s or derof D ece m ber22, 2000. ¶74. A ddi t i onal l y, the cha ncel l ors t at ed i n heropi ni on: T he Partner s hi p cont ends thatSect i on 43- 13- 405 ( 2) M C A , s how s l egi s l at i ve au tho ri za ti o n for the C o u rtto o rde r a tob ac co ce ssation p rog ram . H o w ev er, thi s pr ovi s i on does notspec i f i cal l y pr ovi de f

orthe cr eat i on of

thatpr ogr am or i t s f undi ng. A readi ng of

t he r el evants t atut es ant i ci pat es i m pl ement at i on of a nat i onal t obacc o ces s at i on pr ogr am, w hi ch w as cont empl at ed dur i ng s ett l ementof

the t obacc o l i t i gat i on i nvol vi ng va r i ous s t at es w ho w er e part i es t o those l aw sui t s. W e agr ee w i th the chance l l ori nas m uch as s ect i on 43- 13- 405( 2) ( d) does notgi ve the chanc ery courtauthori t y t o l egi s l at e ort o cont i nue f undi ng the Partner s hi p pur s uantt o t he t erm s of the or derof

D ece m ber22, 2000. ¶7 5. A l t hough w e ar e notdeci di ng t oday’ s cas e on cons t i tut i onal gr ou nd s , w e do acknow l edge thatthe G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F at t ack the
cons t i tut i onal i ty of

the cha ncery courtor derof D ece m ber22, 2000. T he as s ert i on i s thatt he chanc ery courtor derof

D ece m ber22, 2000, vi ol at es a r t i cl e 1, s ect i ons 1- 2, of the M i s s i s s i ppi
c o n stitu tio n , w h ich d e a ls w ith th e se p a ra tio n o f p o w e rs d o c trin e . S e c tio n 1 o f o u r sta te
cons t i tut i on pr ovi des “[ t ] he pow er s of the go vernmentof

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi s hal l be

### 39

di vi ded i nt o thr ee di s t i nctde part m ent s , a nd e ach of them conf

i ded t o a s epar at e magi s t r acy, t o-w i t : tho se w hich ar e l egis l at i ve to one , tho se w h ich are j ud i ci al t o an other , and t ho se
w h ic h a re e x e c u tiv e to a n o th e r.” S e c tio n 2 o f o u r s ta te c o n s titu tio n s ta te s , in tera lia , “ [n ]o p e rso n o r c o llec tio n o f p e rso n s, b e in g o n e o r b e lo n g in g to o n e o f th e se d e p a rtm e n ts, sh a ll
e x e rc is e a n y p o w e r p ro p e rl y b e lo n g in g to e ith e r o f t h e o th e rs .” ¶7 6
. H o w ev er sin c e th e c o n stitu ti o n ali ty issue is no t ou tcom e-d eterm inative in tod ay ’s
cas e, w e nee d notdi s cus s the i s s ue of w hetherthe chanc ery courtor derof D ece m ber22, 2 0 0 0 is c o n stitu tio n a l. T h is C o u rt h a s s tea d fa stly a d h e re d to th e ru le th a t w e w ill a b sta in f r om rul i ng on a cons t i tut i onal i s s ue unl es s s uch det erm i nat i on i s nece s s ary t o a di s pos i t i on
o f t h e c a s e . Fr e e man v. PER S , 8 2 2 S o . 2 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ); De a n v. PER S , 797 So. 2 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); Johnson v. Mem or ial Hos p. , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 8 6 4 , 8 6 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ); Sc ott v. Fl y nt , 7 0 4 S o . 2 d 9 9 8 , 1 0 0 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); K r on v. V an Cleave , 339 So. 2d 559, 563 ( M i s s . 1976) ( “I ti s f

ami l i arl earni ng thatcourt s w i l l notdeci de a c ons t i tut i onal ques t i on unl es s i ti s nece s s ary t o do s o i n or dert o deci de the ca s e. ”) ¶ 7 7
. W i th th i s b e i n g s a i d , we n o t e th e o b v i o u s . Th e Le g i s l a tu r e h o l d s th e p u r s e s tr i n g s . To i l l us tr at e thi s poi nt , w e have pr evi ous l y s t at ed: U nd e ra l l c on s t i tut i on a l g ov e rnmen t s r e c og ni z i ng thr e e d i s t i nctand i nd epen den tm agis traci es, the con trol o f the pu rs e stri ng s of gove rnm ent i s a l egi s l at i ve f

un ct i on; i ndeed, i ti s the s upr eme l egi s l at i ve pr er ogat i ve, in d isp e n sa b le to th e in d e p e n d e n c e a n d in teg rity o f th e leg isla tu re , an d n o t to be s urr ender ed orabr i dged, s ave by the cons t i tut i on i t s el f , w i thoutdi s turbi ng the bal ance of

the s ys t em and endanger i ng the l i bert i es of the peopl e. T he r i ghtof the l egi s l atur e t o cont r ol t he publ i c t r eas ury, t o det erm i ne the s our ces f r om w hi ch the publ i c r evenue s s hal l be der i ved and the obj ect s upon w hi ch they s hal l be expe nded, t o di ct at e t he t i m e, t he m anner , and t he means both of

### 40

thei rcol l ect i on and di s bur s ementi s f i r m l y a ndi ne xp ug nabl y e s t abl i s hed i n our p o l i t i c a l s y s t e m. Cit y o f B elm o n t v. Miss. S tate T ax Co m m ’n , 860 So. 2d 289, 306- 07 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Co lb e rt v . S ta te , 8 6 M iss. 7 6 9 , 7 7 5 , 3 9 S o . 6 5 , 6 6 (19 0 5 )). ¶78. M or e r ece nt l y, i n My e rs v. Cit y o f Mc Co mb , 943 So. 2d 1 ( M i s s . 2006) , w e r ei t er at ed the i m por t ance of

the s epar at i on of

pow er s doctr i ne out l i ned i n the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on. I n ourdi s cus s i on of

the s epar at i on of

pow er s doctr i ne w e s t at ed, “A r t i cl e 1, Sect i on 2 of t he M issi ssipp i C o n sti tuti o n p roh ibit s the ex erc ise o f “ any pow er ” bel ongi ng t o one br anch by
a mem berof

anotherbr anch. ” Id
. at4 ( emphasi s i n ori gi nal )
. T hus , i tf ol l ow s thatthe j udi ci al br anch ca nnotper f or m a cl ear l y l egi s l at i ve br anch f unct i on. T he pr evai l i ng pow er of the L egi s l atur e s t ems f

r om the pow erof

the pur s e. I n M

yers , w e aga i n enunci at ed, “‘ the l e g i s l a t i v e d e p a r t me n ta l o n e h a s a c c e s s t o th e p o c k e t s o f th e p e o p l e , a n d h a s i n s o me C ons t i tut i ons f

ul l di s cr et i on, and i n al l , a pre vai l i ng i nf l uence overt he pec uni ary r ew ar ds of thos e w ho f

i l l the otherde part m ent s , a depende nce i s thus cr eat ed i n the l att er , w hi ch gi ves
s t i l l gr eat erf

aci l i ty t o e ncr oachment s of the f or m er . ’ ” I

d . at8 ( ci t i ng T he Feder al i s tN o. 48 at 33 4 (Jam es M ad ison )). ¶79. B ef

or e money can come outof the s t at e tr eas ury, s uch m oney m us tbe appr opr i at ed b y th e L e g is la tu re . S ta te ex re l. B a rr o n v. Co le , 81 M i s s . 174, 193, 32 So. 314, 315 ( 1902) ( “[ n] o m oney ca n come i nt o t he tr eas ury orgo outof i tl aw f ul l y excep tas d i re ct ed by l egi s l at i ve act . C ol l ect i on a nd di s bur s ementof publ i c m oney bel ong t o the l egi s l atur e and
m u st b e d o n e a s it d ire c ts.” ). W ith o u t q u e stio n , the e x p e n d itu re o f p u b lic fu n d s is

### 41

a p p ro p ri a te ly a le g is la tiv e fu n c tio n . B d. of Superv is ors v. B ailey , 236 So
. 2d 4 20 , 42 3 (M i ss. 1970) ( “The appr opr i at i on of publ i c f unds i s tr adi t i onal l y w i thi n the exc l us i ve pr ovi nce of the l egi s l atur e. ”) T he $20 mi l l i on gi ven annu al l y t o the Partner s hi p has neverbeen appr opr i at ed. I ns t ead, t he chanc ery cour tent er ed t he D ece m ber , 2000, orde ron an ex p a rte
m o tio n b y th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l. H o w e v e r, th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt is n o t au th o riz e d b y law to
m a k e su c h a m o d if

ic a tio n . T h e to b a c c o in s ta llm e n t p a y m e n ts a re m o n ie s th a t u n q u e stio n a b ly b e lo n g to th e sta te o f M iss iss ip p i, a n d all o f th e se p a y m e n ts, in c lu d in g th e a n n u a l p a y m e n ts
w hich w ere di vert ed to the P artnershi p, shou l d h av e b een placed i n the H eal th C are Trust Fund unt i l pr oper l y appr opr i at ed by the Legi s l atur e. ¶80. H ow ever , the Par tner s hi p a s s ert s thatthe f unds pa i d t o the Par tner s hi p a r e not s ubj ect t o the appr opr i at i ons pr oces s . T o s uppor ti t s ar gum ent , the Partners hip cont ends thatt he tob ac co sett lem en t pay m en ts are p ri v ate fu n d s g iven for a d esig n ated p u rpo se; an d thu s, are not“s t at e f

unds
. ” The Par tner s hi p r el i es on T atum v. W

h eeless , 180 M i s s . 800, 178 So. 95 ( 1938) , f orthe as s ert i on thatnon- s t at e f unds gi ven t o the s t at e of M i s s i s s i ppi f

ora des i gnat ed p u rp o s e a re n o t s u b

je c t to th e a p p ro p ri a tio n s p ro c e s s . Tatum i n v o lv e d M issi ssipp i’ s unempl oym entcompensa t i on l aw . I n Tatum , the L egi s l atur e l evi ed t axes on e m pl oyer s and
re q u ire d th e fu n d s to b e p lac e d in to a tru st f u n d fo r th e b e n e fit o f p e rso n s w h o in v o lu n tar ily lo st th e ir jo b s. T h e L e g isla tu re d id tak e a ffirm a tiv e a c tio n a n d w e c o rre c tly h e ld “ [a]s th is
m o n ey is no t pro p erty to b e p u t i n to the stat e treasu ry, bu t i s to b e h eld b y the s tat e treasu rer,
w ho i s au t hor i zed t o pl ace i ti n the depos i t or i es , and kee p i tapartand s epar at e f r om t he gener al f unds of the s t at e. . . . ” Tatum , 180 M i s s . at827- 28, 178 So. at102.

### 42

¶ 8 1
. W e fin d th a t Tatum i s cl ear l y di s t i ngui s habl e. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the L eg isl ature di d nott ake a f

f i r m at i ve ac t i on t o s etas i de $20 mi l l i on eac h year speci f i cal l y f ort he Par tner s hi p. I ns t ead, the pr ovi s i ons of the S ett l ementA gr eementsetas i de $61. 8 m i l l i on f or
a tw o -y e a r p ilo t p ro g ra m f o r w h ich th e P a rtn e rsh ip w a s th e re a fte r e sta b lish e d to c o n tro l. N ow here i n the Sett l ementA gr eementdi d the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi orthe var i ous t obacc o def endant s addr es s c ont i nued f undi ng f orthe pi l otpr ogr am. T he cha ncel l oracknow l edged thi s r eal i ty i n herM ay 30, 2006, or derw hi ch vaca t ed t he D ece m ber22, 2000, or der , w hen
s h e fo u n d , in tera lia , that“abs ents peci f i c l egi s l at i on provi di ng fort he cr eat i on and f undi ng
o f a to b a c c o c e s s a tio n p ro g ra m , th e C o u rt lo o k s to th e la n g u a g e o f t h e s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t.” ¶8 2. T ur ni ng now t o t he Set t l e ment A gr eement , i ti s cl eart hatw hi l e t he Set t l ement A g re e m e n t p ro v id e d fo r s u b se q u e n t am e n d m e n ts; it i s e q u a lly c lea r th a t su c h a m e n d m e n ts
w er e t o be i n w r i t i ng and s i gned by the s i gnat or i es t o t he S ett l ementA gr eement . T he D ece m ber22, 2000, or derw hi ch di vert ed $20 mi l l i on annual l y t o t he P artner s hi p, w as gener at ed w i thouta w r i t t en mot i on and f r om an ex p a rte mee t i ng by the A t t orne y Gene r al
w i th the chanc el l or . T hus , the Set t l ementA gr eementw as i m pr oper l y “amended” by the ex p a rte entry of

the D ece m ber22, 2000, or der , w i thouta w r i t t en amendm ents i gn ed by t he sig n a to rie s to th e o rig in a l S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t. ¶83. L i kew i s e, the Set t l ementA gr eementpr ovi des onl y f orthe f undi ng of

a tw enty- f

our
m o n th ‘p ilo t’ p ro g ra m .” ¶ 8 4
. In fa c t, th e lan g u a g e o f th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

### 43

8
. P il o t Pro g ram P a y m en t. In su p p o rto f th e S tat e o f M issi ssipp i’ s demonstr at ed comm i t m entt o the meani ngf ul and i m m edi at e r educt i on of the us e of T obacco P roduct s by chi l dr en underthe age of 18 year s , Set t l i ng D ef endant s agr ee t o s uppor ta pi l otprogr am ( the “M i s s i s s i ppi T obacc o Pi l ot Pr ogr am”) , the t erm s of w hi ch sha l l be subm i t t ed t o the C our tby the A t t orney G ener al of

t he St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , and t he el ement s of w hi ch sha l l be ai m ed s peci f i cal l y atthe r educt i on of the us e of

T obacc o Pr oduct s by chi l dr en under the age of

18 year s . A ccor di ngl y, on orbef or e O ct ober20, 1997, Set t l i ng D ef endant s s hal l , pur s uantt o a mu tuall y acce ptabl e es cr ow agr eementatt ache d her et o as Exhi bi tA , caus e t o be pai d i nt o a s econd s peci al es cr ow acc ount( the “M i s s i s s i ppi T obacc o Pi l otPr ogr am E s cr ow A ccount ”) , f orthe benef

i tof the S tate o f M iss iss ip p i, t o b e h e ld in e sc ro w p e n d in g F in a l A p p ro v a l o f th is S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t, th e s u m o f $ 6 1 ,8 1 8 ,0 0 0
. The Mis sissi ppi Tobacco P i l otP r ogr am s hal lcom m ence w i thi n a r eas onabl e per i od af t erF i nal Appr oval

of this Set t l em ent

A gr eem ent

, and s hal llas tf

ora 24- m onth per i od. T he $61, 81 8, 000 amount payabl e by Sett l i ng D ef endant s i n s uppor tof

the M i s s i s s i ppi T obacc o Pi l otPr ogr am (the “Pi l otP rogra m A m ount ”) s hal l be us ed onl y af

t erC our tappr oval of

the s peci f

i c t erm s of

the M i s s i s s i ppi T obacc o P i l o tP r o g r a m f

o rg e n e r a l e n f

o r c e me n t , me d i a , e d u c a t i o n a l a n d o th e rp r o g r a ms di r ect ed t o the under age us er s orpot ent i al under age us er s of T obacc o Pr oduct s , buts hal l notbe di r ect ed agai ns tany part i cul art obacc o company or compani es or a ny part i cul arbr and of T obacc o Pr oduct s . N o expendi tur e f r om the P il o t Pro g ram A m o u n t sha ll b e m ad e ex ce p t up o n a p p li ca ti o n to th e C o u rt b y th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l a n d a p p ro v a l o f s u c h a p p lic a tio n b y th e C o u rt . ( E m phas i s added)
. T he Sett l ementA gr eementgoes on t o s t at e: 9. A nn ual Payment s . E ach of the Sett l i ng D ef

endant s agr ees , s ever al l y and notj oi nt l y, t haton D ece m ber31, 1998 and annua l l y ther eaf t er( s ubj ectt o f

i nal adj us t m entw i thi n 30 days ) , i tshal l caus e t o be pai d i nt o a s peci alaccount

f or the bene f i tof the Stat e of

Mis s is s i ppi(t h e “ A c c o u n t” ). . . . ( E m phas i s added)
. G i ven thatthe annua l payment s w er e t o be depos i t ed i nt o “a s peci al
acc ountf ort he bene f

i tof t he St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , ” i ti s the Legi sl at ure’ s s ol emn dut y and
re sp o n sib ili ty to a p p ro p ria te th e se fu n d s a n d n o t th a t of th e ju d icia ry . It i s im p o rta n t to n o te th a t fu n d s h e ld in a “ sp e c ial a c c o u n t” still eq u a te to “ sta te m o n e y .” A d d iti o n a lly , itis
a b u n d a n tly c lea r fro m th e u n c o n d iti o n a l lan g u a g e o f th e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t th a t b y its

### 44

very t erm s , the pi l otpr ogr am w as t o l as tf oronl y tw enty- f

ourmont hs , a tw hi ch t i m e the pi l ot p ro g ra m w a s to e x p ir e b y th e e x p re s s te rm s o f t h e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t. ¶85. I n the end, w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o f i nd that the chanc ery court or der of D ece m ber22, 2000, m us tbe vac at ed s i nce i tw as voi d ab i ni t i o beca us e of bei ng in viol at i on of

t he appl i cabl e s t atut es and the Set t l ementA gr eement ; ther ef or e, w e nee d notdel ve any f ur ther i nt o s uch i s s ues as w hetherthe D ece m ber22, 2000, or dervi ol at es the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on and courtrul es and pr ocedur es . T hus , w hi l e the cha ncery courtw as i ncorr ect i n i t s r eas oni ng, w e her e uphol d the cha ncel l or ’ s or derof M ay 30, 2006, w hi ch or dervaca t ed the pr i oror derof

D ece m ber22, 2000, al bei tf orr eas ons di f

f er entfr om thos e s t at ed by the
c h a n c e l l o r . T h i s C o u r th a s c o n s t a n t l y h e l d th a ti f a tr i a l c o u r tr e a c h e s th e r i g h td e c i s i o n , we
w i l l af f i r m thatde ci s i on e ven though the tr i al c our tmay have r eac hed thatr i ghtdeci s i on f or th e w ro n g re a s o n . A ldridg e v. W est , 9 2 9 S o . 2 d 2 9 8 , 3 0 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); G e o rg ia -P a c ific Cor p. , I nc. v. Mooney , 909 So. 2d 1081, 1089 ( M i ss. 2005) ( ci t i ng D onald v. A m oco P r oducti on Co. , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 6 1 , 1 7 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 )); Falco L im e v. Mayo r of V i cksbu rg , 836 So. 2d 711, 725 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng J a c kso n v. Fly , 215 M i s s . 303, 311, 60 S o. 2d 782, 786 (1 9 5 2 ))
. See al

s o F ulton v. R obinson In du s. , I nc. , 6 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 7 0 , 1 7 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). A cc o rdin g ly, w e a ffi rm the M ay 30 , 20 0 6 , ord er i n so far as i t v ac ates the p ri o r cha n ce ry c o u rt
o rd e r o f D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 . H o w e v e r, t h e re is o n e m o re is s u e w h ic h w e m u s t a d d re s s .

### The Gove rnor , Di vis ion of Medi ca id and MHCTF do not rai seth e i ss ue of 17 

### re im burs em ent

for thePar tne rs hip’ s e xpendi ture of funds whic h wer e r ec ei ved by the Par tne rs hip vi a pr evi ous c hanc er y court order s. Thus, we ne ed not addr es s this iss ue whi ch has n ot b een raisedonapp eal. 45 I I I . W HE T HE R T HE F UN DS CU RR E NT L Y H E L D B Y T HE PARTNERS HI P F OR A H EALTHY M I S S I S S I PP I M UST BE TR ANS F ER RE D T O THE M I S S I S S I P PI HEAL TH CA RE TR US T F UND ¶86. H avi ng det erm i ned (1) thatt he G overnor , D i vi s i on of M edi cai d and M H C T F had a
r i ghtt o i nt ervene i n thi s act i on f orthe purpos e of

chal l engi ng the cha ncery courtor derof D ece m ber22, 2000; and, ( 2) thatthe cha ncery courtor derof D ece m ber22, 2000, al l ocat i ng $20 m i l l i on p er yea rt o the Partner s hi p, w as nota val i d and enf or cea bl e or der( i n ot her
w or ds , thatthe or derw as voi d a b in iti o ) , w e now turn t o the f i nal i s s ue of

w hetherthe f

unds
cur rent l y hel d by the Partner s hi p as a r es ul tof the D ece m ber22, 2000, or derm us tbe t ransf err ed t o the H eal th C ar e Trus tFund. T hi s i s s ue i s r ai s ed on cr os s - appea l by t he G ov e rno r , D i vi s i on of

M e di c a i d a nd M H CT F. 17 ¶ 8 7
. R e ite ra tin g o u r f in d in g in Is s u e II , supra , t hatt he or derof D ece m ber2 2, 2000, w as voi d a b in iti o , w e poi ntoutthat , s i m pl y s t at ed, the phr as e “voi d a b in iti o ” means that“[ a]
c o n tra c t is n u ll fro m th e b e g in n in g if it se rio u sly o ffe n d s la w o r p u b lic p o licy in c o n tra st to
a c o n tr a c t w h ic h i s m e r e ly v o id a b le a t th e e le c tio n o f o n e o f t h e p a rt ie s to th e c o n tr a c t.” B l ack’ s Law D i ct i onary 1411 ( 5 e d. 1979)
. I n S a m p les v. D a v is , 9 04 S o. 2d 10 61 (M i ss. th 2004) , w e s t at ed: I n G uil f or d Count

y v. E l ler , 146 N
. C
. A pp. 579, 553 S. E
. 2d 235 ( 2001) , the N o rth C a ro lin a C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w a s fa c e d w ith a sim ilar is su e o f w h e th e r it

### 46

w as err orf

orthe tr i al courtt o s i gn and ent era w r i t t en j udgm entnotcons ent ed t o by al l part i es . I n i t s opi ni on, the courts t at ed: A c ons entj udgm enti s a contr actof the part i es ent er ed upon the r ecor ds of

a courtof

com pet entj ur i s di ct i on w i th i t s s anct i on and appr oval
. I ti s w el l
- s ett l ed that"' the pow er of t he cour tt o s i gn a cons entj udgm entdepends upon the unqual i f i ed cons entof

the part i es ther et o; and the j udgm ent is voi d i f s uch cons ent

does not exis tat the t i m e the cour ts anct i ons orappr oves the agr eem ent a n d p ro m u lg a tes it a s a ju d g m e n t.' ""[A] c o n se n t ju d g m e n t is v o id if a p a rty w ith dra w s c o n se n t b e fo r e th e ju d

g m e n t is ent er ed
. " I f

a cons entj udgm enti s s etas i de, i tm us tbe s etas i de in it s en ti rety. T h e p erso n w h o c h a ll en g es th e v ali d ity o f a c o n sen t jud g m en t, be ars th e b u rde n of pro o f t o sho w th a t itis i nval i d. I d. a t 5 8 1 , 5 5 3 S .E .2 d a t 2 3 6 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Sam ples , 904 So. 2d at1064. ¶8 8
. T h is C o u rth as c o n sisten tly s tate d th a t a c o n se n t ju d g m e n t is in the n ature o f a
c o n tr a c t. P arkerv. P arker , 4 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 1 , 1 3 6 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 ); G u th rie v. G u th rie , 233 M i s s . 550, 553, 102 S o. 2 d 381, 383 ( 1958)
. T he 1997 Sett l ementA gr eementand the
c h a n c e llo r’s su b se q u e n t “c o n se n t ju d g m e n t” a p p ro v in g th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t w e re in f acta c ontr actbe tw een the A t t orney G ener al , f orand on beha l f

of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s ci t i zens , and the tobacco com pan i es. ¶8 9. A ny ef

f or tt o am end t he 19 97 c on s e ntj ud gmen tw ou l d h a ve t o c omportw i th t he p ro v is io n s o f th e S e ttle m e n t A g re e m e n t. C le a rl y , th e D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , ex p a rte or derw as contr ary t o the expr es s pr ovi s i on s of the 1997 Sett l ementA gr eementand the s ubs equent
courtor derappr ovi ng the Sett l ementA gr eement ; theref ore, the D ece m ber22, 2000, or der
w as voi d a b in iti o . Becaus e the D ece m ber22, 2000, or derw as voi d a b in iti o , itn e c e ss a rily

### 47

f ol l ow s thatthe s ubs equent l y- ent er ed or der s of J anuary 17, 2002, N ovember20, 2003, and D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , w e re lik e w ise v o id a n d th a t, t h e re fo re , the P a rtn e rsh ip h a s n o rig h t to the moni es r ece i ved underthes e or der s ; ther ef or e, t he chanc el l orerr ed i n f ai l i ng t o di r ectt he P a rtn e rsh ip to p a y o v e r a ll rem a in in g fu n d s d e riv e d fro m th e D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , o rd e r to th e H e a lth C a re T ru s t F u n d a n d s u b s e q u e n t o rd e rs . See Mel lott v. Love, Supt

. of B anks , 152 M i s s . 860, 865- 66, 119 So. 913 ( 1929) ( w hen contr acti s voi d a b in iti o , part i es ar e “r es t or ed to the statu s in w h ich th ey w o u ld h av e b ee n if the c o n tr ac t had n ev er b ee n m ad e” ). CO NC L US I ON ¶ 9 0
. F o r th e re a so n s sta ted , th e o rd e r o f M a y 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , a s e n ter e d b y th e Ja c k so n C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt, i s a ffirm e d in p a rt, an d re v e rse d in p a rt an d ren d e re d
. W e fin d th a t w h ile the cha ncel l orpr oper l y perm i t t ed the Partner s hi p, G overnor , D i vi si on of M edi cai d and M H C T F t o i nt ervene, and w hi l e the c ha nc e l l orpr oper l y vaca t ed the pr evi ous l y- ent er ed or der of D ece m ber22, 2000, the chanc el l orerr ed i n f ai l i ng t o decl ar e the D ece m ber22, 2000,
or dert o be voi d a b in iti o , and in fai l i ng t o di r ectthe Partner s hi p t o r el i nqui s h al l f unds
curr ent l y hel d by the Partner s hi p ( f unds der i ved f

r om the D ece m ber22, 2000, or der , and the subsequent l y-ent ered orders ) by t ransf err i ng these fund s t o the M i ssi ssi pp i H eal th C are Trust Fund. ¶ 9 1
. C o n sis ten t w ith this o p in io n , th e P a rtn e rsh ip fo r a H e a lth y M iss iss ip p i sh a ll fo rth w ith tr ans f ert o the H eal th C ar e Trus tFun d al l fund s der i ved f r om the cha ncery courtor der s of

### 48

D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 , Ja n u a ry 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 , N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , as w e ll
as any otherchanc ery cour tor derw hi ch otherw i s e di vert ed any of the t obacc o s ett l ement fu n d s in to th e P a rtn e rsh ip a c c o u n t, c o n tr a ry to th e ju d ic ia lly a p p ro v e d S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t. ¶ 9 2
. ON DI RE CT AP P E AL : AF F I RMED . ON CR OS S - AP P E AL : RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y , D I C K I N S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., CONCUR. DI AZ , P . J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. GR AV E S AN D L AMAR , J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶93. B eca us e t oday the m aj or i ty di s r egar ds our R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and es t abl i s hed
c a se law re g a rd in g tim e ly in ter v e n tio n , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶9 4. T he i nt er venor s s eek t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n a c a s e mor e tha n f ouryear s af

t eri t w as f i nal i zed. I nt ervent i on i n M i s s i s s i ppi m ay be a chi eved pur s uantt o ourM
. R
. C
. P. 24, w hi ch
a llo w s in ter v e n tio n b y rig h t a n d p e rm iss iv e in ter v e n tio n ; in b o th in sta n c e s th e m o tio n sh a ll be m ade “[u] po n ti m el y ap pli cat i on . . . . ” W e h ave p revi ou sl y d et erm i ned that “t i m el i ness h a s n o fix e d m e a n in g ,” a n d so w e h a v e c o n sid e re d fo u r fa c to rs: ( 1) the l ength of

t i m e dur i ng w hi ch the w oul d be i nt ervenora ctual l y knew or r eas onabl y s houl d have know n of hi s i nt er es ti n the ca s e bef or e he pe t i t i oned f orl eave t o i nt ervene; ( 2) the ext entof

the pr ej udi ce thatthe exi s t i ng part i es t o the l i t i gat i on m ay s uf f eras a r es ul tof

the w oul d be i nt ervenor ' s f ai l ur e t o appl y f

ori nt ervent i on as soon a s he ac tuall y k new or r easona bly should hav e kn ow n o f hi s i nter est i n the ca s e; (3 ) th e e x ten t o f a n y p re ju d ic e th a t t h e w o u ld b e in ter v e n o r m a y su ffe r if h is pet i t i on f orl eave t o i nt ervene i s deni ed; and (4 ) th e e x iste n c e o f u n u su a l circ u m sta n c e s m ili tatin g e ith e r f o r o r a g a in st a det erm i nat i on thatthe appl i cat i on i s t i m el y.

### The s im ple r vari ation of

thi s t es t us ed in som e c ourt s i s s ti llgrounded on thece ntral 18 

### con cept o f timeliness. See Unit ed St ate s v . Washingt

on , 86 F. 3d 1499, 1503 (9th Cir. 1996) (test for interventionis “(1) th e stage o f the p roceed ing at wh ich anapp li cant seek s to int er vene ; ( 2) the pr ej udic e t o other partie s; and (3) therea son f or and le ngth of

thedel ay” ). 49 City o f T u p e lo v. Ma rtin , 747 So. 2d 822, 826 ( M i s s . 1999) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on
om i t t ed)
. Y etthi s f

our - f act oranal ys i s i s s t i l l gr ounded upon the ce ntr al conce ptof tim e lin e s s . ¶95. T w o f

act or s ar e expl i ci t l y c on c e rne d wi th t i mel i ne s s , a ndthe othe rtw o ar e i nt ertw i ned
w i th the r es ul t s of

t i m el i nes s orthe l ack ther eof
. T her ef or e, as a thr es hol d m att er , a mot i on
m u s t b e tim e ly
. See Ma rtin , a t8 26 ( “ Rega r dl e s s o f whethe ri nt e r ve nt i on o f r i ghtor p e rm iss iv e in ter v e n tio n is s o u g h t, i n e ith e r c a se th e m o tio n m u st b e tim e ly ” ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). 18 ¶96. A ccor di ngl y, i n cert ai n extr eme cas es , w hen the m ot i on t o i nt ervene has been f i l ed
m a y b e d isp o sitiv e o f th e e n tire a n a ly sis . T h is is o n e o f th o s e c a s e s . F o u r y e a rs is sim p ly t oo l ong t o s at i s f

y the r equi r ement s of

R ul e 24. I ndeed, ourC our tof A ppeal s ha s hel d t hat
w hen a pa r ty had not i ce of an act i on on A pr i l 14, a m ot i on t o i nt ervene f i l ed l at erthatyear
o n D e c e m b e r 1 5 is n o t “ tim e ly ” fo r t h e p u rp o s e s o f R u le 2 4
. See H is W a y, In c . v. McMill

in , 909 So. 2d 738, 747- 48 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005)
. W hi l e i n H is W ay s even mont hs cons t i tut ed
a “s ubs t ant i al de l ay” thatw arr ant ed the deni al of a mot i on t o i nt ervene, the maj or i ty t oday fi n d s th a t n e a rl y fi ft y m o n th s is s o m e h o w tim e ly
. I d. a t 7 4 8
. ¶ 9 7
. S u c h a re s u lt w o u ld lik e ly n o t b e r e a c h e d i n o th e rfo ra . See L ioi v. S a ftu rf In t’l L td. , 2004 W L 2391985, *2 ( O hi o A pp. 5 D i s t . O ct . 25, 2004) ( w hen party had not i ce of an

### 50

a c tio n th re e y e a rs b e fo re filin g a m o tio n to in ter v e n e a “ trial c o u rt w o u ld n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n denyi ng [ a party’ s ] m ot i on t o i nte r vene on the bas i s of thi s f act ors t andi ng
a lo n e ” ); Fa rr e ll v. B o a rdo f Co m ’rs , L e m h i Co u n ty , 64 P
. 3d 304, 316 ( I daho 2002) ( deni al of m ot i on t o i nt ervene uphel d w hen “thr ee yea r s had pass ed si nce the comm ence m entof t he
su it”); W il liam s v. W

inston , 640 N
. E
. 2d 923, 925 ( O hi o C om . Pl
. 1994) ( m ot i on t o i nt ervene “mustbe t i m el y m ade” and mot i on w as u nti m el y w hen cas e has “bee n pendi ng f orf our y e a rs” ); Mohr v. State B ank of Stanley , 7 7 0 P .2 d 4 6 6 , 4 7 3 -7 5 (K a n . 1 9 8 9 ) (m o tio n to interve n e d e n ied a s u n ti m ely w h en b rou g h t r o u g h ly fo u r ye ars a ft er li ti g ati o n b eg an ); Apoda c a v. T

own of Tom e Land Gra nt , 520 P. 2d 552, 553- 54 ( N
. M
. 1974) ( deni al of m ot i on to i n terve n e u p h eld w h en fi led “ fou r and on e-h alf y ea rs aft er . . . li ti g ati o n start ed ” a n d w h ere “[o]th er m ea n s [w ere ] av ail ab le t o . . . p ro tec t and asse rtthe[] ri g h ts” o f th e interv en o rs); A r m s tr ong v. T

idelands Li

f e I ns. Co. , 466 S. W
. 2d 407, 412 ( T ex. C i v. A pp. 1971) ( pet i t i on for interv en ti o n de n ied w h en sub m itted “ three y ea rs an d n ine m o n ths a ft er su itw as fil ed ”). ¶ 9 8
. T h e ru lin g o f th e m a jo rity c o u ld a llo w th e sy ste m o f c h e c k s a n d b a lan c e s in th is S tate t o be t hrus ti nt o chaos , as no pr ocedur e orpol i cy w oul d everbecome concr et e. Forno m att er ho w much t i me ha s pa s s e d– w he the rf ou rye a r s orf

orty— un de rthe maj or i ty’ s rul e a
s ucce s s ori n of

f i ce may pr ocee d t o deci m at e the bi ndi ng and l egal cont rac t s and
arr angement s of

herpredece s s or . Such capr i ce s houl d be avoi ded atal l cos t s , and I am gr eat l y conce r ned aboutthe r eper cus s i ons and r i coche t s w e s hal l s ee f r om thi s deci s i on.

### 51

¶99
. B ecaus e t oday ourR ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and l ongs t and i ng preceden tare subv ert ed,
a n d a n o b le e ffo rt to p ro tec t th e liv e s o f M iss iss ip p ian s is d ism a n tle d , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t.